Kira 


LIBRARY 


NIV ERSERY OF -CALIFOR NIA. 


GEER Oh, 


Pre 


1 a 
Ey ἐλ 
ἀρ de 
Ἦν αὶ 


ΟΠ ὭΣΤΕ AS AN INDEX OF STYLE 


ΙΝ THE ORATORS. 


A DISSERTATION 


PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, 

JUNE, 1808, 


BY 


WILLIAM ALEXANDER ECKELS. 


UNIVERSITY 
OF 
CALIFORN\E 
BALTIMORE: 


JOHN MURPHY COMPANY... -“ 


1gOI. 


CONTENTS. 


ay F ‘ ἣ 
af 4 Ae 
; ͵ ro Ἄν 


[ TRPOSE ‘AND Score FSCCOCHEH RSH SORES at seeeeeers Pray ee το ΜΚ Ες τ ἢ ᾿ 


; Compananrve VALE OF Tew : ae 
Average WOPUTP OR Os πε τ νΣ δὴ γεν nace tent t tev taae cs 


ἣν ἢ ee eon 


‘ 
” 


ad Correlation. οφοοοφοοεΦεφόοοφοθοφοθοοθο φοοσιφονοι RD όσα CY νον seccavece Φορος eee 


β 


‘ ὰ 


ὙΠ with that of other OFALOLS..esseesereeeesenressesonseeeers esd cesaphy “ΑΝΝΑ, bts 
ΝΟΣ in ‘different classes of orationS...........+. iwaie 18 ἐπ κὰν 


9) in different orations of same Class,........sccesssossescsessccsccsnestios 21. 
8). in different orb of same OFBLLON.cossseeseneess oe | 38 


, 


pe wy a) of Non-correlative UDG pssiddesieectsaieectniosssstions tas eaeppipaeacied 86 
ΣΎ, of Correlative TYPC..seecereeesccscencs seecccccccvecoooons sesces 89. 


τ ae ees ae . ΝΣ 44 


a ; Ts Ne 


Φθοφθοφοοφθθθοθόθθοοθθθθθθό ΟΡ ΎΝ ΦΆΘ eee es φνφοφνφοοόοφον 


PREFATORY NOTE. 


εν 


The writer’s obligations to Professor Gildersleeve in connection 
with the present work appear on many pages of it. It only 
- remains here to acknowledge the far deeper debt for inspiration 
~ and illumination along many lines of Greek studies incurred 
_ during a rather unusually long period of intercourse as teacher 

and student. He also takes this opportunity to express his thanks 
to Professor Minton Warren, late head of the Latin department 

-at Johns Hopkins, for much patient and helpful guidance in the 
τ methods of philological interpretation and research. 


~ ΜΙΑΜΙ UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, OHIO, 
September 19, 1901. 


J a lie 
— 
aah RAR Ret 


pe He 
a 
CALIFORTS 


“QSTE AS AN INDEX OF STYLE IN THE 
ORATORS. 


GENERAL PURPOSE. 


The purpose of the present work is to examine the use of 
ὥστε in the Attic orators with reference to stylistic effect. The 
historical development of the construction and the syntactical 
phenomena which it exhibits have been fully set forth in such 
studies as Seume, De Sententiis Consecutivis Graecis, and Gilder- 
sleeve’s article on the Consecutive Sentence in Greek, A. J. P. vu. 
pp. 160-175. Without meaning to press unduly the distinction 
between syntax and style, or to deny that all syntax may be 
“made available for the appreciation of form” (cf. the article just 
cited, A. J. P. vir. p. 162), I have confined my attention chiefly 
to those features of the usage of ὥστε which are most obviously of 
stylistic import, endeavoring to ascertain what, if any, rhetorical 
ends the varied handling of the consecutive sentence has been 
made to ‘subserve. 


CHOICE OF ORATORS AS THE FIELD. 


The orators have been chosen as the field for this study, (1) 
because they represent the most artistic development of Greek 
prose, the most careful attention to the structure of sentences and 
periods ; (2) because they show an especial fondness for the ὥστε 
construction ; (3) because this department has thus far received 
least attention in this connection. Of studies dealing with the 
use of ὥστε in particular authors or departments, special mention 
must be made of the work of Fellmann on the Tragic Poets, 
of Wehmann on Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, and of 
Berdolt on Plato—the latest, and much the most comprehensive 
and satisfactory presentation of the details of ὥστε usage for a 

5 


6 "“Oore as an Index of Style in the Orators. 

particular department. Berdolt, in his preface, notes the need 
of a similar investigation in the domain of the orators. As to 
the second point, the language of Seume, in his introductory para- 
graph (De Sent. Cons. Graec., p. 3), is pertinent: “Exempla autem 
tantum ex antiquioribus scriptoribus afferam, maxime ex oratoribus, 
qui artissima sententiarum per particulam ὥστε coniunctione, in 
qua magna est vis oratoria, creberrime utuntur.” The special 
adaptation of this construction to oratorical purposes it will be 
one of the objects of this discussion to make clear. The actual 
frequency of its use in this department will appear from the 
following tables, in which the average occurrence of ὥστε to 
the Teubner page in the several orators is set over against its 
use in the four most important classical prose writers. 


TABLES OF AVERAGE OCCURRENCE. 


i, 130, 
Herodotus........ > γ, ANUPNON us Ge τῶ 8 
Thucydides...... .25 Andocides......... 36 
Plato.e cscs .25 IaV SIA Ses ἘΠΕ 95 
Xenophon........ 00 ΤΟΟΟΡΉ 65. του 1.00 

3 ΤΑ ΘΠ Βανι. sean 09 
Demosthenes...... .46 
Aeschines.......... 30 


It will be noted that all the non-oratorical writers except Xeno- 
phon fall below the average of the lowest of the orators. Further, 
reference to Berdolt’s work, p. 39, shows that the group of 
Platonic writings which stand highest in occurrence of ὥστε---- 
doubling the average use for Plato—includes the Apology, a work 
cast in oratorical form, and pieces like the Symposium and 
Phaedrus which contain long monologues of a more or less. 
formal sort and so bear something of the rhetorical stamp. 


ORIGIN OF THE STUDY. 


The impulse to this study was given by Gildersleeve’s review 
of Wehmann’s dissertation, A. J. P. xrv. pp. 240-2. Beginning 
with some comments on the varying use of the finite moods and 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 7 


infinitive in different authors, and passing on to the consideration 
of the use or omission of a preceding correlative with ὥστε, the 
writer of the review reaches the conclusion that “it is safe to 
speak of stylistic effect within the range of dare.” Aiming to 
test the correctness of this general proposition by detailed investi- 
gation, I naturally followed the lines suggested in the review, 
and added to the study of the moods and of correlation some 
inquiry into the value of the frequency of occurrence of ὥστε 
in general as an index of style. The result has been to convince 
me that this last, as well as the use of moods, is of minor 
importance as a stylistic test, while the phenomena of correlation 
are of marked significance. A few illustrations may suffice to 
indicate the negative character of the results obtained from the 
use of these minor tests, and to explain why they are here- 
after treated only as incidental and subsidiary to the main 
theme—the use of correlation with ὥστε. 


TEsT oF AVERAGE OCCURRENCE. 


The table of average occurrence of ὥστε in the orators presented 
above is a good illustration of the comparative barrenness of mere 
statistics, without close analysis and interpretation. The order 
given is chronological; and the ‘returning curve” presented—the 
regular increase and decline in the use of aore—is, at first glance, 
sufficiently impressive. Yet it is hard to connect these variations 
in frequency of use with characteristic differences of style. A 
rough generalization might see in the large use of the construction 
in Lysias and Isocrates, as compared with its rarity in Antiphon 
and Andocides, the sign of an increase in artistic carefulness as 
to sentence-structure; but, from this point of view, how are 
we to account for the marked falling-off in the case of a no less 
careful artist, Demosthenes? And what shall we say of the 
close approximation—almost co-incidence—as to employment of 
ὥστε in Isocrates, the model of the “ florid” style, and Lysias, 
the representative of the “genus tenue”? Another illustration 
is to be found in a comparison of two speeches of Isocrates—the 
Adv. Euthynum and the Helen. Both of these stand high 
among the Isocratean works in use of ὥστε, but they represent 


8 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


styles of composition the most diverse. Here, as in the com- 
parison between Isocrates and Liysias, the difference of style 
of which the ‘ occurrence” test gives almost no sign is most 
accurately reflected in the use or omission of correlation. 

If there is anything suggestive in these statistics of average 
occurrence, it seems to me to be the marked avoidance of ὥστε 
in the orators following Lysias and Isocrates, as compared with 
the usage of these two authors. We might conceive of a certain 
re-action against a use of the particle which had come to be 
noted as excessive and approaching a mannerism. Such a view 
would receive some support from results noted in the latest 
works of Isocrates himself. 


Test oF Moops. 


In speaking of the unreliability of a simple mood-test, I do 
not mean to deny the existence of a distinction between ὥστε 
with the infinitive and with the finite verb. Some measure of 
difference doubtless exists, and the use of the moods probably 
has still further secrets to yield to a subtle and painstaking 
analysis." I only wish to record a conviction that the mere 
statistics of the moods do not afford any such broad and readily 
applicable test of style as do those of correlation. The two sets 
of phenomena often show a close relation ; but the meaning which 
they hold in common can generally be expressed much more 
accurately in terms of correlative and non-correlative than in 
those of finite verb and infinitive. An illustration may be had by 
comparing the usage of Isocrates and Lysias as to moods. Lysias 
shows finite verb to infinitive as 2.07:1; Isocrates, as 1.5:1. 

This is not a very striking difference, to begin with. So far 
as it has significance for our purpose, it speaks, I think, for the 
freer, less closely-connected structure of Lysias as compared with 
Isocrates ; but this is more exactly measured by the ratio of 
correlative to non-correlative forms. For reasons which will 
be developed later on, the finite mood is the favorite form with 
non-correlative ὥστε ; hence we might say that it is because of 


* Cf. especially the observations on the moods in Gildersleeve’s article, A. J. P. 
Vii. pp. 170-3. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 9 


his larger use of non-correlatives that Lysias shows a preference 
for the finite verb. So, in an examination of the several orations 
of Isocrates, I have found that the difference in moods sometimes 
tells a part of the same story of which the difference as to 
correlation tells practically the whole. 

Allowing that the use as to moods and that as to correlation 
often run together, we seem to be justified in giving greater 
prominence to the latter as a stylistic test. In such a study, 
we are dealing with choice of forms; and the question of use or 
neglect of the correlative is a prior one to that of mood—w. e., 
when the mood comes to be chosen the correlative has already 
been used or rejected, so that the mood is more likely to be 
influenced by the usage as to correlation than the latter by the 
mood. 

Again, the value of the mood as a stylistic test is diminished 
by the existence of certain considerations which, important as 
they are from the strictly syntactical standpoint, may be fairly 
called extra-stylistic. I refer especially to the rules, almost 
inviolable for the orators, which require the infinitive in certain 
connections—with preceding negatives, questions, conditions, and 
the like.’ Choice of mood being here excluded, these cases of 
ὥστε, which make up a considerable group, are in a measure 
excluded from the scope of our inquiry. I hope to add, at the 
end of the present work, some observations on the use of the 
moods, and to point out some of the limitations under which 
I conceive the study of their use can be more profitably pursued. 


TEsT OF CORRELATION. 
(a) Its Value in General. 


The general considerations which tend to make the use of ὥστε 
correlative a norm of style are sufficiently indicated in the review 
of Wehmann (A.J. P. xiv. pp. 240-2) to which I have already 
referred.?. The first lies in the responsive effect of correlation 


1 Cf. Seume, p. 49, Gildersleeve, Cons. Sent., A. J. P. vis. p. 173. 

31 subjoin some extracts from this review, which should be read entire, as 
giving the actual starting-point of this investigation: “ ὥστε occupies a peculiar 
position among the correlative sentences—nay, among the dependent sentences. 


10 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


generally. ‘A certain deliberateness, a certain περιβολή, attaches 
to any wedded pair of correlatives.” But further, the author 
points out the peculiar nature of the ὥστε sentence in not allow- 
ing interchange of position between the principal and subordinate 
members.! This absence of inversion excludes the element of 
“ surprise,” of “interjectional effect,” which is possible in other 
correlative sentences, and makes the sentence with ὥστε and a 
correlative ‘necessarily reflective, necessarily sedate.” The ele- 
ment, then, of orderly progression of thought, added to that of 
responsion and balance inherent in the use of a correlative, gives 
that “consequentiality ” which Gildersleeve attributes to the form 
of sentence which we are considering. The contrast between this 
and the form in which tendency—inherent or actualized—is added 
as an afterthought, without the anticipating correlative, is that to 
which I desire to direct attention in the following pages. The 
questions of finite or infinitive with the latter type and of the 
more or less close connection of the ὥστε clause as indicated in 
our texts by the arbitrary device of punctuation, I prefer to leave 
out of sight for the present. The contrast between the C. and 
N. C. types may be fairly illustrated by placing such a sentence 
as Isoc. Hel. 37: Οὕτω yap νομίμως καὶ καλῶς διῴκει τὴν πόλιν 
ὥστ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἴχνος τῆς ἐκείνου πραότητος ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἡμῶν 


The protasis of the conditional sentence may follow. There is nothing strange in 
that. The final clause may precede. That liberty comes in with the dramatic 
poets. We may say ὅς--τ-οὗτος as well as οὗτος---ὅς, ὅσον---τοσοῦτον as well as 
tocovTov—éaov; but ὥστε must always follow, must always be what its name 
implies—consecutive, and when the correlative is expressed there can be no 
surprises, no bouleversements. It is, therefore, necessarily reflective, necessarily 
sedate. It is perforce excluded from the sphere of liveliness, of yopyérns. Of 
course, a certain deliberateness, a certain περιβολή attaches to any wedded pair 
of correlatives, but if the relative precedes the demonstrative, there is room for 
an interjectional effect. Not so with oftws—é&ore, not so with τοσοῦτον---ὥστε. 
This effect of the correlative in general and of ὥστε in particular was distinctly 
recognized by the ancient rhetoricians.... At all events, the consequentiality, 
as one might render the περιβολή of the consecutive sentence, is a point not to 
be overlooked in future treatises on ὥστε, and the subject is one that deserves 
to be pursued.” 

'The very rare examples of a ὥστε clause preceding are interesting as showing 
how completely the final conception had come to prevail in these cases. The 
equation ὥστε = ἵνα can alone account for the inversion. Of course there is no 
such instance of inversion where a correlative is used. 


BOLL ον 


( UNIVERS!T Y } 
Me CA! He " τ 
Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 11 


καταλελεῖφθαι... . over against one like Ad Nic. 49: Οἱ δὲ 
τοὺς μύθους εἰς ἀγῶνας καὶ πράξεις κατέστησαν ὥστε μὴ μόνον 
ἀκουστοὺς ἀλλά Kal θεατοὺς γενέσθαι or Adv. Euth. 5: Νίκιας 
τοίνυν Εὐυθύνου πλεῖον μὲν ἔχει, ἧττον δὲ δύναται λέγειν: ὥστ᾽ οὐκ 
ἔστι Ot ὅτι ἂν ἐπήρθη ἀδίκως ἐπ᾽ Εὐθύνουν ἐλθεῖν. 


(6) Its Value in the Orators. 


The observations recorded above by no means exhaust the 
stylistic effects of which the construction of ὥστε with a correla- 
tive is capable, but they are sufficient to show that it does have a 
certain rhetorical coloring, and is especially adapted to the more 
formal kinds of discourse.’ Hence we should expect to find it 
flourish in that group of writers whom we call rhetorical in the 
stricter sense—the orators. A glance at the statistics justifies this 
expectation. The tables here presented show the ratio of C. to 
N. C. ὥστε in the principal classical writers preceding and con- 
temporary with the orators, over against that in the first seven 
orators of the canon. The figures for the non-oratorical writers 
are taken from Berdolt, who is the first scholar, so far as I know, 
to present any comprehensive statistics as to correlation. 


TABLES SHOWING Ratio oF C.:N. C. 


Vs Il. 

CN: oO i ONC 
Aeschines......... 11 Ὁ Antiphoniis.si5 ec Le 2 ie 
Sophocles......... 3d Andocides......... ΤΥ 
Kuripides......... 1.4. TSVBIAS ον ἀπ στον 1.1.7 
Herodotus........ 1: 222 Isocrates.:..cccsc5e3 22108 
Thucydides...... 1:11 ΕΠ si ΚΉΡΡῚ ἡ Ὁ se Dee a | 
Aristophanes.....1: 10 Demosthenes,.....1.89 : 1 
| Fe ee ee 1.9.9 Aeschines.......... 1.48: ] 


Without stopping to comment on the interesting features presented 
by the first table I note (1) that the variations shown are those of 


1 Cf. the review just quoted on the character of the few passages which show 
ὥστε correlative in Aristophanes. 


12 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


the department and the individual rather than of chronological 
order (except, perhaps, in the case of the tragic poets); (2) and 
especially, that of the non-oratorical writers, Herodotus alone 
shows a fondness for C. surpassing that of the lowest on the list of 
the orators, Antiphon, and even here the gain in “correlation is com- 
paratively slight.! No other writer of the first group approaches 
Herodotus in inclination towards the C.; and the correlative 
use of ὥστε is seen to be a pre-eminently oratorical construction.’ 


CHOICE OF ISOCRATES FOR STUDY. 


Since it is impossible, in the compass of the present work, to 
present a detailed study of wore usage for all the orators, it 
becomes necessary to select one or two for closer examination in 
order to illustrate the general method. I have chosen Isocrates 
as a centre. To this professional rhetorician, this painstaking 
student of the technique of composition, we look especially for 
the conscious employment of rhetorical effects. 

Other considerations, of a practical sort, commend him for our 
purpose. The volume of his work is sufficiently great—Demos- 
thenes alone surpasses him in this—and the average length of the 
several orations is greater than in most of the orators. His 
work, too, represents a greater variety of departments of oratory 
than that of any of the others. 

After a somewhat minute study of the various phases of the 
subject based on Isocrates, I hope to add some results gathered 
from Demosthenes, whose importance in this connection readily 
suggests itself. 


ΤῸ should be noted that Berdolt excludes from consideration seven cases of 
“coalesced” οὕτως ὥστε with finite verb in Herodotus. On this phenomenon, 
of. Berdolt, pp. 22-3, 92, Seume, pp. 34-36, and Wehmann, p. 14. It forms an 
intermediate stage between the C. and N.C. types; but I incline, on the whole, 
to class it as C. If we add these examples to the C. side in Herodotus, the ratio 
stands 1:1.9—i. 6., his advance over Antiphon is increased, but he still keeps 
his relative position, between Antiphon and Andocides. 

*I have, unfortunately, no complete statistics for Xenophon. From Wehmann’s 
lists one can gather only that, in clauses with finite verb, he uses C.: N.C.::1: 4.69. 
Of course, with the finite verb, a preponderance of N.C. is the rule. Still, I 
see no reason to anticipate that Xenophon will be found to surpass Herodotus in 
relative frequency of the C. type. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 13 


PLAN OF STUDY FOR ISOCRATES. 


The plan proposed is to compare Isocrates’s use of ὥστε (1) 
with that of the other orators; (2) in the different classes or 
departments of his work; (3) in different speeches of the same 
class; (4) in different parts of the same speech. This division 
aims to bring out the stylistic peculiarities both of the individual 
and the department. 

The usage as to correlation is, as has been said, the main matter 
of consideration. In treating of it, in this part of the work, C. 
and N.C. are treated as two simple opposed types. The finer 
shades of stylistic difference involved in the handling of each of 
these—the sub-divisions of C. and N.C. respectively which seem 
significant for our purpose—will, for the sake of clearness, be 
reserved for subsequent treatment. 


(1) ComMPARISON OF IsOCRATES WITH OTHER ORATORS. 


The data for a comparison of the use of ὥστε in the several 
orators, with reference to correlation, are to be found in the table 
submitted above (p.11). That the high-water mark of preference 
for the C. type is reached in Isocrates will not surprise us. 
Dignity of tone and impressiveness of manner, a love of respon-_ 
sion and balance and of a certain deliberate, “ processional ” 
movement, are qualities which have been noted in him by all 
the critics from Dionysius down.’ To the production of these 
effects the figure of ὑπόστασις in general—heightening the effect 
of a statement by amplification and interpretation in the second 
member—and particularly that form of it exhibited in the 
correlative consecutive construction, is especially favorable. The 
stately flow of the sentence in which the οὕτως sights its answer- 
ing ὥστε from afar, and the speaker is seen to have the whole 
complex thought firmly in hand from the beginning, commends 
itself to Isocrates, as against the form in which tendency or 
consequence is loosely added as an afterthought—whether in the 
pure “detached” form, with finite verb, or with the slight 


107. D. of H., De Scriptt. Vett. Cens., V. 2, καὶ πομπικός ἐστι, etc. 


14 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


grammatical nexus involved in the use of the infinitive. It is 
one of the chief characteristics of the “smooth” or “florid” 
harmony of which Isocrates is the chosen representative, that it 
aims at having “clause closely knitted to clause, and every 
sentence rounded to a period ;”’* and the natural connection between 
Isocrates’s fondness for ὥστε correlative and for periodic structure 
has been pointed out.? 

Comparing now the usage of Isocrates with that of the other 
orators, one is at first tempted to press the notion of a chronological 
development in the direction of correlation. But we need to 
note (1) that the whole period represented by the activity of 
these seven orators is comparatively short—the long life-time | 
of Isocrates almost binds it into a unity; (2) that the first four 
on the list, who show the development in regular sequence, are 
practically contemporaries, while in the case of those following 
Isocrates—where the difference in time become more substantial— 
the chronological order is decidedly interrupted. We are thrown 
back for the significance of these figures on the question of 
individual difference of style; and here, I think, the test. is 
amply approved. 


Antiphon. 


The most striking difference shown by the figures is that 
between Isocrates and Antiphon. We need only to recall 
Dionysius’s statement that “the ‘smooth’ or ‘florid’ style is 
essentially the opposite of the austere,” and that Antiphon is 
the pre-eminent representative of the latter among the orators. 
The austere style “does not aim at composing periods, or round- 
ing sentences.” ‘“Antiphon,” says Jebb, “was more periodic 
than any one who had preceded,” but “still far from the ease 
of Lysias or the smooth completeness of Isocrates.” In fact, 
while the contrast between Antiphon and Isocrates is the most 
striking feature of the table, the interval between Antiphon and 
his immediate successors in this regard is sufficient to place him, 


1 Cf. Ὁ. of H., De Comp. Verb., c. 22-24. 
* Gildersleeve, A. J. P. vi. 171—“ the two [οὕτως---ὥστε] make famous points 
d appui for the construction of a long period, as every reader of Isocrates knows.” 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 15 


as it were, in a class by himself. This falls in well with another 
observation of Jebb’s—that Antiphon’s priority in the canon is 
due not simply to his being born a few years earlier than any 
of the rest, but that “a broad difference separates him from those 
who were nearly his contemporaries . . . . from Andocides and 
Lysias, as well as from Demosthenes and Hyperides.” Not only 
the ratio of C. and N. C., but the character of the examples under 
each type, differentiates him from his successors.! 


Andocides. 


Andocides, the “gentleman orator,” the “amateur” among 
these artists of rhetorical discourse, is perhaps less significant 
for our purpose, in view of the lack of consciousness and of a 
definite method generally attributed to him. He stands, as to 
ratio of C. to N. C., between Antiphon and Liysias, but much 
nearer the latter than the former. Jebb says that he composes 
“in a far less periodic style than Thucydides, Antiphon, or 
Lysias ;” but I question whether the comparison with Antiphon 
will hold, so far, at least, as periodic writing in the modern 
sense—suspension of sense and “rounding” within the single 
sentence—is concerned. Further, it may be noted that with 
respect to his handling of the ὥστε sentence inside the two types 
which we have been comparing, he seems fairly entitled to his 
intermediate position. His use of C. ὥστε is not essentially 
different from that of Lysias and the later forensic orators ; 
while in the character of the sentences which make up the 


1One curious fact in Antiphon’s use of ὥστε seems to deserve notice. Of the 
six examples of ὥστε which he exhibits, three occur in the Tetralogies; and all 
these are of a type not elsewhere represented in his works—the formula εἰς 
τοῦτο ἥκειν ὥστε with the indicative. Further, these three are the only in- 
stances of the ὥστε sentence in the Tetralogies. Schierlinger (Die Unterordnende 
Satzverbindung bet dem Redner Antiphon) notes this latter fact, but not the 
former—the non-use of the formula in the orations proper. One may still, 
perhaps, accept his judgment that the divergence in ὥστε usage between the 
Tetralogies and the orations is not a circumstance of sufficient weight to count 
against the genuineness of the former; but I should incline to give it a place if 
any considerable number of other stylistic peculiarities could be brought to 
accompany it. At least it is not amiss to note, from the standpoint of our 
inquiry, that in the orations proper the ratio of C. to N.C. is less than 1: 5. 


16 “Oore as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


N.C. type, he shows a much closer affinity with the “old- 
fashioned ” school of Antiphon and Thucydides.’ 


Tyysias. 


Lysias, in respect to relative use of CO. and N. C., stands almost 
exactly half-way between Antiphon and Isocrates. THis relation 
to the former has already been pointed out. As to the line that 
separates him from Isocrates little more is needed than to call 
attention to the freer and more varied character of his composi- 
tion. He did not lack the power to construct an effective period ; 
but the whole aim of his art—especially his ethopoeia—forbade his 
adherence to a constantly periodic style like that of Isocrates. 
To quote Jebb again (11. p. 62), he “knew how to brace or 
relax his frame-work,” while Isocrates “must always round his 
sentence.” The admixture of λέξις εἰρομένη with periodic struc- 
ture, increasing as the speech approaches the purely private 
character, would seem sufficient to explain the lower proportion 
of C. to N. C., as compared with Isocrates. To appreciate his 
varied employment of ὥστε a comparison of different orations 
would be necessary.” 


TIsaeus. 


The reaction in the direction of the earlier N. C. tendency seen 
in Isaeus, when compared with Lysias, is not very strongly 
marked, but still perceptible. In explanation of it, we may 


1T cannot forbear mentioning the results gathered from the spurious oration 
Against Alcibiades, associated with the name of Andocides, as illustrating the 
difference between his style and that of Isocrates and, incidentally, the possible 
value of ὥστε as a test of genuineness. It shows C.: N.C. ::2.5:1, over against 
1:1.4 in the genuine Andocides. This close approach to the Isocratean school, 
both in ratio of C.and N.C. and in the character of the ὥστε sentences generally, 
is a remarkable confirmation of Jebb’s statement that this oration “is far more - 
artificial than anything by Andocides which we possess; it approaches, indeed, 
more nearly to the style of Isocrates.’”’ 

*Here again, an oration generally regarded as spurious is suggestive. Or. 
20—Pro Polystrato—goes beyond even the wide range of Lysias in its remark- 
able preponderance of N.C. (C. 1: N.C. 11). Cf. Jebb’s comments, 1. p. 219, 
on its “absence of art,’’ “long strings of loosely-joined clauses,” etc. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators, 17 


adduce the somewhat greater negligence as to form in this most 
practical of the orators. More specifically, I would emphasize 
the predominant place given to strict argument in the speeches 
of Isaeus. Dionysius—de Jsaeo, c. 16—notes how Isaeus usually 
essays complete logical proof, while Lysias rarely goes beyond the 
rhetorical syllogism. This large use of formal argumentation 
accounts chiefly, I think, for the gain of the N.C. type in Isaeus ; 
for his list of N.C. dore’s is made up mainly of a particular 
variety of the type which, as we shall see later, belongs to the 
domain of strict argument.’ 


Demosthenes and Aeschines. 


Demosthenes, again, shows a reversion to something like the 
usage of Isocrates in his marked preference for correlation. A 
somewhat detailed discussion of his use of ὥστε in its bearings 
upon style is given at the end of this work. 

The importance of Aeschines for this study is diminished by the 
considerations referred to in the case of Andocides—he, too, is a 
manner of “amateur.” It is at least not surprising to find that 
the test places him in close proximity to his great rival, in connec- 
tion with whose work the special features of his use of ὥστε usage 
could best be examined. 


This comparison of the orators is necessarily sketchy and 
incomplete. A presentation of the finer differences in use of 
ὥστε exhibited under the C. and N. C. heads respectively is post- 
poned until a general survey of the types in Isocrates has been 
made. The general outline just given suffices, I think, to show 
the value of the test; the pages that immediately follow may 
suggest some methods by which it may be applied more closely to 
the style of the several orators. 


1 Jebb’s comment on the “running” style in Isaeus, and his archaic use of τε 
in particular, recalls, in view of his tegdency to ὥστε N. C., Gildersleeve’s 
parallel between the “after-thought te” and the “after-thought ὥστε ᾽ 
(A.J, Pi xty; 241), 


18 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


(2) COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT CLASSES. 


We are now prepared to consider especially the use of ὥστε 
in Isocrates; and it is proposed first to compare the relative 
frequency of the C. and N.C. types in the several classes, or 
departments, into which his works may be divided. 

There is an advantage, in an inquiry like the present, in em- 
ploying the grouping of another; it precludes the possibility of 
the investigator’s twisting the classification, with an eye to his 
own results, in the interest of any particular theory. I have 
chosen to follow that of Jebb. It is based, he says, not on the 
accident of form, but on subject-matter. I have ventured to 
substitute the more convenient term “ΚΝ Philosophical ” in the case 
of those professional pamphlets which Jebb classes as ‘‘ Essays on 
Education.” His “ Political” class does not correspond exactly 
to the “ Deliberative” of Demosthenes, but it approaches nearest it, 
dealing chiefly with large public questions and aiming, ostensibly 
at least, at persuasion to some course of action. His “ Hortatory ” 
class includes those didactic compositions which aim at giving 
general advice concerning the conduct of life. The terms “ Epi- 
deictic” and “ Forensic” need no explanation. 

Taken in the order of preference for the correlative, the classes 
stand thus: 1. Epideictic; 2. Philosophical (Essays on Educa- 
tion); 3. Political; 4. Forensic; 5. Hortatory. The Epideictic 
is easily first—C. 3.68: N.C. 1; the Philosophical and Political 
stand close together—2.35 : 1, 2.25: 1, as do the Forensic and 
Hortatory—1.54:1,1.10:1. It will be noted that there is no 
class in which the N.C. predominates; and in the first three 
classes (see table of separate orations, given below) there is no 
single work in which the C. type does not prevail. The last two 
show almost an equal number of works in which C. and N.C. 
respectively predominate. 

Assuming that the correlative use of ὥστε goes with a dignified, 
elaborate, and consciously rhetorical style, and especially with a 
marked preference for periodic structure, and the N.C. with the 
opposite of this, the order of classes here presented is much what 
we should expect. The Epideictic is the natural home of the 


ee 

7 " ne ἣν 

POOR RAR YS 
r ; © fuer 

df Or THE 

¢ : ae 
x ; Wsirmol 

\ / Δ ΚΣ £ fmt ty 


Κὶς. < 4! , “ 
Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the ΟΥ̓ αἰδν δ᾽ 19 


᾿ς 


first-mentioned kind of writing (on the “essentially epideictic 
character” of uniformly periodic composition, οἵ, Cie. Or. 207, 
Volkmann, Rhetorik, p. 435), while the Political writings of 
Isocrates—who took no actual part in the contests of the state— 
have naturally much of the epideictic character; so also the two 
treatises on education, which serve not only as an “apologia pro 
vita sua,” but as specimens of that rhetorical art whose usefulness 
they aim to vindicate. Especially is this true of the fragment 
“Contra Sophistas,” which the ancient rhetoricians classed with 
the encomia. The Hortatory and Forensic classes represent a 
tendency the opposite of epideictic. In addition to the defini- 
tions of Dionysius, we have the testimony of Isocrates himself 
(Panath. 1) to the nature of the γένος Svxaviexdv— speeches seem- 
ing to have been spoken simply, and not partaking of κομψότης.᾽" 
Clearness and closeness of argument are sought at the expense 
of ornament and the graces of rhetoric. So, too, the brevity and 
sententiousness of hortatory discourse are unfriendly to elaborate 
periods and correlative structure. 

This “department” test, which represents the influence of the 
sphere and eliminates the factors of time and individual usage— 
the latter often involving an element of mere caprice—is especially 
interesting in the case of a conscious artist like Isocrates, who 
recognized clearly, as utterances here and there throughout his 
works show, the propriety of different styles of writing for different 
sorts of themes, and the existence of clearly-marked divisions of 
oratory. The Epideictic—using the term here not in the narrower 
sense of mere sophistic display, but in that of an attempt to dignify 
and embellish a worthy theme by appropriate ornament—he him- 
self recognizes as peculiarly his own province, and the great body 
of his work is strongly tinged with it; but he knew how to repress 
the tendency in departments to which it was alien. A comparison 
of the forensic work of Isocrates with that of Lysias affords an 
excellent illustration of the combined influence of the department 
and the individual. The former influence works to bring down 
the ratio of correlation from that of Isocrates in general (1.54: 1 
against 2.21:1); but the latter keeps it from descending to the 
standard of Lysias, whose work may be treated as practically all 


20 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


forensic (1.54:1 against 1:1.17). The resultant of the two forces 
is something almost exactly intermediate. 

At first glance, the influence of department in the results before 
us might seem to be complicated with that of time, since the two 
groups which show a marked falling-off in correlation are both 
admittedly early. But an examination of the list of separate ora- 
tions given below shows that particular works of the same period, 
both within and without these classes, exhibit a decidedly high use 
of the C. type; and further, in the case of the exceptional works 
within these classes the divergence in use is directly explicable by 
a mingling of departments. In general, I cannot see that the 
variation in the use of ὥστε has much to do with chronological 
development—at least, so far as the relations of C. and N. C. 
are concerned—although the unusually long literary career of 
Isocrates would seem to give excellent opportunity for such a 
development. I have recorded below one or two instances in 
which the average occurrence of the particle is noticeably lower in 
very late work.’ 


1In associating a relatively large use of C. ὥστε with Epideictic discourse, 
we must, of course, bear in mind the latitude of the term. The oratory of 
“display ”’ shows very different stylistic tendencies in different quarters and at 
different periods. The manner of ornament affected by one school is lightly 
esteemed by another. The common end—to please and dazzle, rather than to 
teach and persuade—alone unites them. It would be interesting to apply our 
test to the work of the school of Gorgias with its tendency to short and simply- 
constructed sentences. Unfortunately the materials at hand are too slight. 
Taking the brief specimens mentioned by Belling (De Periodorum Antiphonte- 
arum Symmetria, p. 19)—the fragment of an Epitaphios by Gorgias, the later 
Palamedes and Helen attributed to him, the Ἐρωτικός of Socrates in Plato’s 
Phaedrus, and Agathon’s oration in the Symposium,—I_ have noted that, in the 
small group of éo7e’s presented, the N. C. type predominates. 

It is the Epideictic that prevails from the time of Lysias and Isocrates on, 
which delights in full, flowing sentences and to which Cicero assigns the periodic 
structure as a peculiar possession, with which we are dealing here. I have not 
as yet collected this material and tested it by use of ὥστε. But one instance may 
be noted: the Menexenus ascribed to Plato, an Epitaphios, shows a considerably 
higher average occurrence than any genuine Platonic work, and a ratio of 
C.: N.C. of 1:1.4, as against 1:4 for the genuine Platonic works as a whole. 
One other specimen will be considered under the head of Demosthenes. 


δὰ 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. | ἢ 


(8) CoMPARISON OF SEPARATE ORATIONS. 


The consistent variation in the use of ὥστε in the several depart- 


- ments being fairly established, it is proposed to apply the test to 


the individual speeches within each department. We cannot, of 
course, expect the same degree of consistency in the case of every 


single work; but we are naturally led to inquire, when we find a 


piece departing widely in its use of ὥστε from the normal usage 
of its class, whether it is abnormal in other respects—whether it 
is, or is not, a first rate representative of that class. | 

‘The variation may be due to a general difference of style or 
subject-matter, running all through the texture of the piece; or it 
may be due to composite structure—. 6., a piece which is assigned 
to one department of writing may contain considerable strata of 
material belonging properly to another class. Aside from these, 
there may be special circumstances which suggest a natural and 
reasonable explanation. 

Variation of the sort first dashed is, of course, a subtle and 
somewhat elusive feature; and I have, as a rule, adduced it in 
explanation of the ὥστε usage only in the case of works which 
have been noted by other investigators as evident departures from 
type. This general divergence in style, tone, or subject may, of 
course, be combined with “composite structure,” and I have not 
undertaken to keep the two sharply apart. Where the latter 
exists in any marked degree, I shall call attention to it, assuming, 
for the present, in the light of our comparison of departments, 


that the results as to ὥστε usage for the whole work are affected 


by this introduction of alien elements. In the next section I hope 
to show, by analysis of seyeral orations, that the use of ὥστε does 
actually show material difference in these different portions of the 
works in question. 

This study of individual orations will naturally yield less 
striking results than are obtained in the broader field of the 
departments. If it can be shown, on a fair examination, that the 
use of ὥστε varies with a tolerable degree of uniformity according 
to the character of the speech, enough will have been accomplished 
for the purpose. 


2 


22 | Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


The reader need hardly be reminded that the statistics vary 


in impressiveness with the length of the oration. Fortunately, 
Isocrates presents few examples of very short speeches, such as 
abound, 6. g.,in Lysias. That this matter of length may have 
due weight, I have included in the table herewith submitted a 
statement of the number of Teubner pages, actual text, in each 


oration. This table shows the average occurrence of ὥστε and ~ 


number of C. and N. C. examples respectively for each oration, 
with the average occurrence and the ratio of C. and N.C. for | 
each class. The classes are arranged in order of their preference _ 
for the Οἱ, and the orations in each class on the same principle. 


Isocrates. 

1. Ep idetetic. ἜΝ ἢ κι ὐευαρ μοῦ me PG te 
PICICHAS a0 beds PGs ees Oe, Sas ee eee 16332 23 
PUVA ROTES ha ἐν τ ρν: οι, HOS ον be da aout 26: % 
PUBIEIS AS νύν δι 11,» ISS oss aie ees 10.33 
Panathenaicus..... 674 ὅθι τυ ree agen ἐς ἢ 29:10 


Av. oce. for class, .89 Ratio for class, 3.68: 1 


2. Philosophical. 


De Permutatione: ;....° 762.5.-- ΠΟ G.8 ath Cees 41:17 
Mont ΟΡ δῖος ΤΑ SSG. 1:00) oc eae cee ene 6: 3 


Av. oce. for class, .81 Ratio for class, 2.35: 1 
3. Political. 


- Areopagiticus..... 191. 10850 ee 17: 4 
Panegyricus....... LES 24 Of See R RBA OER Arts ΟΦ 
Ce od ρος ςς νον θάλος οθθ ieee eee ΔῸΣ 27:10 
PATAICUS., 6 2 6s 14. os IO EO ee Ran cee ieee 102° 52 
Phifippus ......- Πρ , BVO nes Case ἘΝ τὸν Tee 24:14 


_ Archidamus....... DORs 2 FOU ee Be ek 16:13 


Av. occ. for class, 1.08 Ratio for class, 2.25: 1 


“Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 23 


‘ 4. Fi orensic. PAGES. OCCURRENCE. : ἐμὰ τυ Be 
fe δ Βῖρὶθ.... 2... Le a ἘΠ ea Ue a ΠΝ 18: 4 
Trapeziticus....... δὲ Nears 1S vempeapae Malet Δ fei 11... ὃ 

_ Aegineticus....... LEP oo ZOO... Ὡς μον μα 17:1: .8 
ΗΠ δόμα", 1δὅὲ.. 1.18... 0.00.06 600 ees 9: 9 

Cents Sentences 65.0 1.00..5...6 6s 2: 3 

ove muth yn, δι τἀ. BBS yo. ccc ke dees EES 3:12 


| Av. oce. for class, 1.52 Ratio for class, 1.54: 1 
5. Hortatory. 


RERTCOGIEB Sc eia So's + « TOR as eS le iad et oe ἃ artiee 8: 4 
ΝΥ ΠΟΥ ὀπῆς τοῦ, LAR oo Wie: ἐῶν τ Hawes ΤΕ 
Ad Nicoclem...... La 00 eee Ve eae ες ἢ 


Av. oce. for class, .52 Ratio for class, 1.10: 1 


1. EprmeicTic ORATIONS. 
FTelena (C. 16: N.C. 2). 


The Helen represents the extreme of preference for ὥστε C. 
Its ratio is not only far higher than that of any other representa- 
tive of the Epideictic class, but almost double that of any other 
Isocratean work. Of its examples, all but two are of the C. type ; 
and of the two N.C., one is of the final type, in which correlation 
is excluded, leaving but one in which the C. was at all possible 
and was not employed. : 

That the Helen also represents the most perfect development 
of Isocrates’ elaborately ‘epideictic” manner will, I think, be 


_ admitted. Blass calls it “a show-piece of rhetorical art—nothing 


more.” Jebb notes the fact that it is pure encomium, not mixed 
with apology, like the Busiris, and that the congenial character of 
the theme gives it more freedom and glow. Save for the polemic 


- introduction, it is almost pure narrative, and the panegyrist gives 


his genius full swing, in a succession of long sentences and flowing 
periods of the most ornate type. In a number of the examples 
the correlative word stands at the head of the main clause, adding 


to the ordinary responsive effect of correlation that of balance in 
position. 


24 "Oore as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


That the average occurrence of ὥστε does not rise higher is — 
_ partly due to the separate character of the introduction which, in 
three pages, furnishes but one example, making its average occur- 
rence .383 as against 1.44 for the encomium proper. On the less 
ornate style of the former, cf. Blass." 


Evagoras (C. 26: N.C. 7). 


The Hvagoras, an excellent specimen of eulogistic discourse, 
need not detain us long. In rhetorical finish it compares favor- 
ably with the Helen. As to ratio of C. to N. C., it represents the 
norm of the epideictic class. The actual use of the C. type is 
very high. In the body of the work, the encomium proper, the 
author fairly revels in the construction. | 

That the ratio of C. to N. C. is not higher is due, I think, to 
the difference of theme. Eulogizing a modern, a man of his own 
time, the writer condescends to reason, to point out the bearing 
of the facts narrated on his thesis—the greatness of Evagoras. 
Hence a sprinkling of that form of N.C. ὥστε which is used in 
drawing inferences. In the Helen, moving in the region of the — 
myths, where. the most exaggerated praise was already conceded, 
there was the less occasion for this inferential use of the particle. 
The difference, then, is rather one of the com and purpose of the 
work than strictly Rate 

Here, again, the average occurrence in the introduction and ~ 

conclusion is small—less than one to two pages; while in the 
panegyric portion it is very large—over two to the page. 


Busiris (C. 10: N.C. 3). 


‘The Busiris is rather an essay in literary criticism than true 
encomium, the eulogy on Busiris being introduced incidentally. 
The greater part of the work is taken up with pointing out the 
faults of method and errors of statement of a brother artist who 
had handled the theme, I cite a few points from Blass’ charac- 
teristic.? “In comparison with the Helen, it is less sophistic’”— 


1 Die Attische Beredsamkeit, τι, p. 247. 
*Tbid., p. 250. 


it ES δῶν, Si οὐ ον οἷ Γ᾽, “ῸΣ ™ { ag GQ ar 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 25 


“less brilliant, more composed and matured ”—“ the form is, on the 


‘whole, plainer.” 


That it attains to the nibportion of C. which it exhibits—a little 
below the norm of the class—is due to the encomium proper. 


The piece affords an excellent illustration of the method of an- 


alysis, and I reserve it for further consideration under that head. 


Panathenaicus (C. 29: N.C. 10). 


That the Panathenaicus should stand at the opposite extreme 


of the Epideictic class from the Helen is fully in keeping -with 
_ the inherent difference in the style of the works. The strictures 


of Blass—e. g., that the Panathenaicus is “less artistic than the 
earlier works ”—“ lacks final polishing ””—‘is careless in sentence- 


structure,” etc.—have been, in substance, anticipated by the author 


himself, who expresses a fear (§ 4) that the work may appear 
μαλακώτερος in comparison with its predecessors, and alleges the 
plea of advanced age and physical infirmity. In view of these 
differences, the surprise is rather that it shows a proportion of 
C. ὥστε so nearly approaching that of the Hvagoras and Busiris. 


The work falls naturally into three quite distinct blocks; and an 
apelysis of it well supports the conception of the stylistic value 


of ὥστε advanced in this work. : 
The introduction (1-38) is taken up with a vindication of the 


author’s pursuits and an exposition of his theory of culture; the 


panegyric on Athens (39-198) forms not much over half of the 
whole work; the supplement is personal narrative and explana- 


tion. The introduction is much more formal, and shows fuller 


working out, than the conclusion. The latter was written after 


the three years’ interruption caused by illness, and shows traces 


of the circumstances attending its origin. It is rambling, almost 


‘conversational, in its negligence, containing, in fact, a good deal 


of reported conversation. 

The introduction shows a ratio of C. to N. C. of 3:1; the 
panegyric proper, of 3.8: 1; the conclusion, of 1:1. 

Upon the remarkably low average occurrence of ὥστε in the 
Panathenaicus I am not prepared to generalize; I only note the 
fact that in this respect it stands among the lowest of all the 


~ 


26 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


Isocratean works—only two hortatory discourses falling below 
it—and that its average use is only half that of the next higher 


" epideictic oration. The fact that it is the latest of all Isocrates’ 


writings—separated by intervals of from 25 to 50 years from | 
the other epideictic speeches—might lend some color to the theory — 
of a later conscious avoidance of the particle, such as suggests 
itself in the case of the orators following Isocrates ; but I do not 
find much to support this view. The phenomenon is chiefly 
interesting in view. of somewhat similar results noted in con- 
nection with the oration next considered. ; 


2. PHILOSOPHICAL. 


De Permutatione (C. 41: N.C. 18). 


A parallel might easily be set up between the speech On the 
Antidosis and the Panathenaicus. The former is the longest, as 
the latter is next to the longest, of the works of Isocrates. Both 
were written near the close of the author’s career; and in’ both 
he apologizes, in almost the same words, for his lack of vigor and 
deprecates comparison with his earlier works. Now the Anézdosis 
falls to one-half the average occurrence of the other member of its 
class—the fragment Contra Sophistas—just as the Panathenaicus - 
does with respect to the epideictic oration standing next above it, 
and in both instances the later work is separated from the earlier by 
a long interval of time. Still there are orations of almost equally 
late date in the other classes which show the normal occurrence ; 
and it must be remembered that the Contra Sophistas, with which 
the Antidosis is here compared, is a mere fragment. On the 
whole, I do not see that much can be made out of the coincidence 
in this respect between the Antidosis and the Panathenaicus. 

The Antidosis does not show any marked contrast in ratio of 
C. and N.C. with the earlier work of its class. It takes the 
form, says Blass, of an encomium on the author himself. He 
speaks of it as “more polished than one would suppose ”—in 
view, presumably, of its length, shortness of time of composition, 
and the author’s own unfavorable estimate of it. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 27 


3. POLITICAL. 


The comparative value of the tests of correlation and average 
occurrence is well illustrated by the group of orations designated 
as Political. In occurrence these show a remarkable uniformity. 


In ratio of C. to N. C. they are differentiated, not in the highest 
degree, but quite perceptibly, and in a way that accords well, on 


the whole, with their characteristic differences of subject and 
manner. ‘The difference in ratio that separates each speech from 
those nearest to it on the list is not very striking, but a com- 
parison of those occupying either extreme yields results suggestive 
enough. 


Areopagiticus (C.17: N.C. 4). 


At the head of the list stands the Areopagiticus, and next to it 
the Panegyricus. Both are mainly occupied in setting forth the 
virtues of the older Athenian democracy—the one (as Jebb points 
out) from the standpoint of internal, the other, of external affairs. 
Neither addresses itself to a very immediate or practical end. 
In both cases, the presentation shows that epideictic coloring to 


which the theme invites. The Areopagiticus, while cast in the 


form of a plea before the assembly, is not so much an argument 
as a statement of conditions—a series of contrasted pictures of 
Athenian life under the old and new régimes. Hence the note of 
characterization frequently recurs; there is an abundance of nar- 
rative and description, with a constant undercurrent of praise or 
blame. It is in this sphere of elevated description, of narrative 
touched with emotional warmth, that the stately effect of the 
period based on the use of ὥστε with a correlative is especially 


—gultivated by our author. 


Panegyricus (C. 39: N. C. 13). 


Little need be added to what has already been said of the 
Panegyricus. It is recognized by most modern, as it was by 
many ancient critics, as the most perfect, the most consciously 
artistic, of all Isocrates’ works; and it is as an encomium on 
Athens that it is especially praised. On the skill and care of 


ee Ὁ A Pp γι 


PX \ persia. 
fi Or THE 
, 


. “a7 
UNIVERS KT 


ὶ 


! 


28 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


the composition, and the moderation, at the same time, in the use 
of ornament as compared with earlier works like the Helen, ef. 
Blass, 11, p. 264; also Brougham, Edinb. Rev., xxxvi, p. 513. 
If we were to extend the limits of the Epideictic class as given 
in the table, the Areopagiticus and Panegyricus would probably 
be the first additions to suggest themselves. In the case of the 
Panegyricus especially, certain passages, or “ episodes,” give par- 
ticular occasion for brilliant narrative, and I have accordingly — 
marked it for more minute analysis. 


Philippus (Ὁ. 24: N.C. 14). 


At the opposite end of the list stand the Philippus and Archi- 
damus, in which the ratio of C. to N.C. falls below 2:1. The 
Philippus presents an excellent opportunity for comparison with 
the Panegyricus, coming nearest to it in length of all the Political 
_ orations, and, moreover, treating the same theme—the desirability 
of a combined Hellenic expedition against Persia. But there are 
significant differences in the mode of dealing with the subject ; the | 
treatment, if less brilliant, is here more practical. Being ad- 
dressed to a definite individual—and one, too, whom Isocrates 
had some reason to hope to influence in the direction of his 
favorite project—the element of persuasion predominates over 
that of display. There is a more steady vein of argument and 
appeal—less of expanded narrative and brilliant episode. His- 
torical parallels are often merely cited, instead of being dwelt on 
in detail. As to the style, we may note the author’s own remarks 
(§ 25) on its lack of rhetorical ornament compared with his earlier 
works (see also Blass, 11, p. 317, where it is compared with the 
Panegyricus). The sentences are, on the whole, less perfectly 
rounded and polished; there is an increased tendency to loose 
instead of periodic structure. The composition seems less adapted 
to oratorical delivery—more to that quiet perusal to which the 
author commends it. 


Archidamus (Ὁ. 16: N.C. 18). 


The significance of the ὥστε usage in the Archidamus, in which 
the N.C. type rises nearest to an equality with the C. for the 


Ὥστε as an Indew of Style in the Orators. 29, 


Political group, is perhaps less clear, yet one or two points may 
be noted that suggest a partial explanation. One may not, per- 
haps, venture to think of ethopoeia in this speech purporting to 
be spoken by a young Spartan prince on a vital question of state 
policy ; yet there is an aggressiveness, an earnestness of tone and 
closeness of reasoning that adapts it to the serious purposes of 
deliberative oratory and distinguishes it especially from the epi- 
deictic manner. It is not without oratorical fullness and finish, 
-and there is considerable use of historical material, but Blass 
notes (p. 292) that the sentences are not oratorically rounded. 

Especially significant, I think, is the character of the sentences 
of the N.C. type. They are chiefly of two kinds—(1) the form 
of detached wore sentence which is the instrument of formal logic 
(in keeping with that marked argumentative character of which 
I have just spoken); (2) an unusually large proportion of the 
‘rare types,” such as final and the so-called “superfluous” ὥστε. 
Out of twenty instances, at the most, of these “ rare types” in all 
Isocrates’ work, four occur in this oration. They constitute almost 
a third of the N. C. group of the Archidamus, and help to explain 
why it looms up so largely in comparison with the C." 


4, FORENSIC. 


The widest variations in style in any one class of Isocrates’ 
writings are to be found in the Forensic department; so, while 
it is hardest here to fix the standard or norm of the department 
and to speak of the characteristics of the class as a whole, this 
group lends itself especially well to a comparison of individual 
orations. Some have all the distinguishing characteristics which 
we associate peculiarly with Isocratean style; others show such. 
a marked divergence from these in style and treatment as to con- 
stitute a new type—the true Forensic type—which is essentially 
different, as the orator himself recognized, from the usual manner 
of Isocrates. A glance at the table shows that this diversity in 


1One of the examples referred to cannot be paralleled in Isocrates—(@ 4, 
εἰ μὲν γὰρ δεδειγμένον ὥστε τοὺς μὲν πρεσβυτέρους περὶ ἁπάντων εἰδέναι τὸ βέλτιστον, 
κι τ. λ.), where the ὥστε clause is not only used as subject of an impersonal verb, 
but is a practical equivalent for indirect discourse. 


30 ὅστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


style'is fully reflected in the ὥστε usage. As extreme representa- 
tives of two opposite tendencies, let us compare the De Bigis and 
Adv. Huthynum. 


De Bigis (C. 18: N.C. 4). 


The De Bigis is ostensibly ἃ defence spoken by the younger 
Alcibiades in a suit concerning a team of horses, of which, it is 
alleged, the plaintiff had been defrauded by the father of the de- 
fendant. As we have it, it is an incomplete work. The technical 
part—statement of the case, presentation of witnesses, legal argu- 
ment, etc.—is spoken of in the opening of our fragment as con- 
cluded ; what remains is a glorification of the elder Alcibiades, 
with a protest on the speaker’s part against being punished on 
his father’s account, and an attack on the prosecutor. The eulogy ἢ 
of Alcibiades is full and ornate, so that Jebb speaks with good 
reason of the “thoroughly epideictic character of the whole.” 

Blass says (11, p. 228) that, apart from the attack on Tisias— 
a very brief section—it is to be classed, not with the forensic 
works, but with the encomia; that “the composition displays all 
the brilliance and dignity of which Isocrates’ manner is capable.” 
We need not be surprised, then, to find this speech not only easily 
first in its class in the preference shown for C. ὥστε; but exceeded 
by no Isocratean work except the Helen. As an instance of the 
accumulation of the construction, and the effects to which it lends 
itself, cf. § 26-27. 


Adv. Euthynum (C.3: N.C. 12). 


The Huthynus is easily distinguished from all the other writings 
of Isocrates by its extreme brevity and simplicity ; indeed, these 
qualities have caused it to be regarded with suspicion. Benseler, 
for one, declines to give it to Isocrates, not only on the score of 
hiatus, but on account of the brevity and compactness of the 
periods. One of the latest writers, Drerup, Neu. Jahrb., Suppl. 
Bd. 22, p. 369, acquiesces in this view. There is but the barest Ὁ 
word of introduction; the narrative shrinks to less than a page,’ 
and is confined to the merest outline of facts; all the rest is an 
argument from probabilities (the speech being audprupos), a series 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators, 31 


of syllogisms, of general principles and logical inferences drawn 
therefrom as to the case in hand. Blass (11, p. 222) mentions this 
use of the developed syllogism as peculiar to this oration.. We 
might call the Huthynus the “ ultra-forensic” specimen, in its 
close attention to argument and avoidance of ornament. It is 
such a piece as we could conceive Isocrates to have written for 
the very purpose of illustrating for his pupils the difference 
between the style appropriate to strictly forensic work and his 


own proper province. 


These few pages fairly bristle with ὥστε, but the C. stand 
to the N.C. as 1:4, and the latter are almost entirely of the 
logical inference type which belongs to formal argument. Thus 
the speech stands as the antipode of the De Bigis for the Forensic 
class; and in a survey of the whole Isocratean corpus it stands 
opposed most strikingly to the Helen, the two marking the ex- 
treme of stylistic variation, and also the extreme in the use of 
ὥστε, With their ratios of 1: 4 and 8 : 1, respectively. 


- Ishall not undertake here to apply the ὥστε test to the works 


standing between these two. extremes; the differences are less 


striking, but still substantial. There is a gradation in stylistic 
tendencies, to which the ὥστε usage very fairly corresponds. 
The Trapeziticus and Aegineticus, especially the former, incline 
to the normal Isocratean manner and show epideictic tendencies ; 
while the Callimachus and the Lochites, a fragment, occupy an 
intermediate place between this elaborate style and the bald 
exaggeration of forensic plainness exhibited by the Huthynus, 
and are the best representatives of the true forensic type in 
Isocrates. ‘They show the closest approach to the standard of 


AUysias and Isaeus in their general style, and no less in their use 


of ὥστε. 
5. HorraTory. 


The group of hortatory discourses also shows sufficient variety 
to give fair room for the application of the test. The tendency 
of the class would naturally be in favor of the N.C. type, and it 


1 For an example, see 2 5. 


832 6ὨΣλό᾽ηλήΆ Ὥστε as an Index. of Style in the Orators. 


will be found, in comparing the Nicocles and the Ad Micoclem, 
that the ratio shifts according as the hortatory character is more 
or less strictly adhered to. The Ad Micoclem is the truer repre- _ 
sentative of the type. Blass notes the absence of the ordinary — 
Isocratean features—its lack of “ glitter” and “swing,” and how 
“epideictic fullness dwindles to aphoristic brevity.” The Nicocles 
he ranks much higher, because in it “the dry admonitions are 
limited to an insignificant part of the whole.” The varying pro- 
portion of this “ paraenetic ” element, which in both works forms 
an easily recognizable division, to the whole tells, indeed, a large 
part of the story. In the Ad MNicoclem it forms one-half of 
the speech—in the Nicocles, only about one-fourth; and again, 
outside of the exhortation proper the MNicocles shows the more 
elaborate and polished style. Without presenting a full analysis 
of it, a glance at the most clearly contrasted sections will be οἵ. 
service. 

In §§ 27-47 the speaker recounts, as a claim to obedience, the 
achievements and virtues of his immediate ancestors and of him- 
self. Here we have the joyous swing of epideictic narrative ; the 
sentences are longer and more artistically constructed than in the 
other sections, and the “grand roll” which is associated with 
περιβολή is distinctly perceptible. This topic occupies five pages 
and contains seven examples of ὥστε, of which six are C. (one- 
third of the speech thus furnishing three-fourths of the examples 
of C. ὥστε), while the strictly hortatory portion shows, in its four 
pages, but one instance of the C. The ratio of 6 C.:1 N.C. in 
the highly epideictic section just referred to is set over against a 
ratio of 2:3 for the rest of the discourse; but even these latter 
portions are surpassed in preference for the N.C. by the Ad 
Nicoclem, with its ratio, for the whole work, of 2:5. 

The Ad Demonicum exhibits the most rigid type of a purely 
hortatory discourse. It is chiefly interesting in connection with 
our inquiry for its almost entire absence of ®ore—averaging .17 
to the page. There is nothing else approaching this in the whole 
Isocratean corpus, and the fact perhaps deserves to be considered 
in connection with the questions that have been raised as to the 
genuineness of the work. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators, 33 


(4) ComMPaRISON OF Parts OF SAME ORATION. 


The last use made of the general test of correlation has been 
to apply it to different parts of the same oration, where there is 
a change of subject sufficiently marked to carry with it a distinct 
variation in style. Everything depends here, of course, on the 
care and fidelity with which the work is done. One must guard 
against making arbitrary divisions or magnifying minor differences. 
The process of analysis is facilitated, for Isocrates, by his fondness 
for inserting distinct “ episodes,”! and his tendency to introduce 
these formally, in language which clearly indicates that a “show- 
piece ” is about to be presented. Some hints of the method have 
been given in the preceding study of orations.? A few additional 
examples are here presented. 

The De Bigis, though apparently a fragment, has sufficient 
compass to admit of such an analysis. The principal divisions 
may be characterized thus: (1) §§ 5-21 are narrative, but mixed 
with argument, the tone partly apologetic; (2) §§ 25-38 are pure 
narrative, the tone that of bold and unqualified panegyric; (3) §§39- 
50 are argument and personal plea. The first division shows an 
average occurrence of 2 to the page, and a ratio of C.: N.C. as 
3:1; the second, average occurrence, 2.5, and of the ten examples 
of ὥστε every one is C.; the third, average occurrence, .67, and all 
examples N.C. 

These results coincide closely with the observations of πων 
(Ν. J., Suppl. Bd. 22, pp. 350-1), who, in his study of this oration, 
fates the point that “the style is more ornate in praise than in 
defence;” classes the peroration (my third division) as forensic, 
the rest as epideictic, and concludes that this oration shows the 
‘sharp severance in Isocrates between the epideictic and the forensic 
diction. | 

The Panegyricus, in addition to its highly artistic character, 
has the practical advantage, for our present purpose, of being one 
of the longest of Isocrates’ works. The parts into which it can 


1Cf. Ὁ. of H., De Orat. Antigq., Isoc., c. 4. 
See, e. g., the section on Hel., p. 24; Evag., p. 24; Panath., p. 25; Nic, 
p. 32. 


34 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. é 


be divided are of sufficient length to give fair scope for the 
_ statistical method. It contains two large sections,’ aggregating 
one-half of the whole speech, which are evidently of the epi- 
deictic order—narrative colored by emotion, pieces of “fine 
writing,” designed to call forth admiration or reprobation for 
the parties described and incidentally to exhibit the rhetorical 
powers of the author. The topics are, the glories of ancient 
Athens, the joint achievements of Athens and Sparta at the 
time of the Persian wars, and the disgraceful policy of Sparta 
and her partisans in recent years. | 

In this half of the speech C. stand to N. C. as 4.5: 1, as against 
a ratio of 3:1 for the work as a whole, and 1.5: 1 for those com- 
bined portions which show least of the epideictic quality (7. e., the 
remainder of the speech, except 133-159, a passage dealing with 
the present condition of Persia and having something of the epi-_ 
-deictic character, but less clearly marked than in the two divisions 
noted above, the narrative being more freely mingled with argu- 
ment and appeal).’ 

In the Areopagiticus, the epideictic character is most marked 
in three portions, which together constitute three-fifths of the 
oration. Secs. 20-55 are a panegyric on the old democracy of 
Athens, setting forth its political, social, and religious character, 
and especially the beneficent workings of the court of Areopagus. 
Secs. 64-70 are of a historical nature, a résumé of the achieve- 
ments of democratic Athens, in contrast with the period of the 
rule of the Thirty. In 79-83 we have a brief recapitulation of 
the excellences of the earlier as compared with the later order 
of things. In each of these divisions the language is elevated, 
and the eulogistic character is emphasized by the formal way in 
which these narratives are introduced.’ 

In the other two-fifths of the speech the author points out 
the present evils of the body politic, seeks to arouse and suggests 
remedies. Here there is less freedom of movement; he picks his 


123-99 ; 115-128. 

2 Of the six N.C. examples in the strictly epideictic portion, four are final or 
object clause, one is logical inference, leaving but one example of ordinary result 
expressed without correlation. 

SOL ee the closing words of 19 and 63 and the opening of 79. 


"Oore as an Index of ‘Style in the Orators. “88 


way more carefully and adopts oftener the tone of argument and 
self-justification. 
In the former group of passages, which, taken together, make - 


up the epideictic division of the speech, the average occurrence 


of ὥστε is 1.57, and the ratio of C. to N.C., 8:1; in the latter, 


the average occurrence is .37, and the ratio of C. to N.C.,1:2. 


The Philippus does not admit of analysis so readily as the 
Panegyricus, with which it is best compared. There is in it a 
more constant blending of the different elements—argument, ex- 
hortation, narrative, and personal explanation ; and so, as already 
noted, there is less of extended and ornate narration. Three 
rather short passages, however, may be taken as representing fairly 
well the epideictic element—47-55, 58-66, 106-112. These are 
somewhat elaborate bits of narrative, designed to set forth character 


in strong light and elicit praise or blame. The last two deal with 


_ the exploits of great men and heroes ; the first is a brief summary 


of the recent history of Sparta and other Greek states. The first 
and second are formally introduced as expanded topics.’ 

A study of these combined passages shows an average occurrence 
of ὥστε of 1.38, and a ratio of 3.5 C.:1 N.C. (the ratio for the 
oration being 1.71:1), On the other hand, a group of passages 2 


- coming nearest to the pure argumentative type shows an average 


occurrence of .73, and C. to N.C. as 1: 2.67.3 
In the case of the Busiris, it is easy to distinguish a portion 
which partakes strongly of the epideictic character. The panegyric 


on Busiris (§§ 10-29) occupies a little less than half of the speech. 


The remainder consists of an apology for Busiris,* with literary 
criticism of Polycrates and other artists, advice, and self-justification. 

As to the use of ὥστε, the encomium (10-29) has an average 
occurrence of 1.40 and a ratio of C. to N.C. of 7:0. The other 
parts, with an average occurrence of .92, show C. to N. C.as 1:1. 


1Cf. 22 46 and 58. 

?The passages taken are 30-46, 68-80, 86-88, 113-123, 132-143, 149-155. 

3A short passage of this oration (124-126), portraying the degeneracy of the 
Greeks of the time by a comparison with the barbarians, illustrates excellently 


the use of ὥστε in amplifying and subdividing a period. Here, in a single 


sentence, something less than a page in length, we have three examples of 
ὥστε, all correlative. 
4 Blass, 11, pp. 247-8, carefully distinguishes between this and the panegyric. 


36 “Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


The fact that in these and in other orations the average occur- 
rence of ware in the epideictic portions is generally higher than 
- in other parts, while the ratio of C. to N.C. is so much greater, 
indicates clearly the large use of the correlative type in this kind 
of writing. 


SPECIAL TYPES OF C. AND N.C. 


A few words should be added as to the further subdivisions 
of ὥστε sentences which I have found it useful to make in 
attempting to trace more exactly the stylistic effect of the con- 
struction. The simple division into OC. and N.C. tells a great 
deal, but not all. These more minute divisions have occasionally 
been referred to in the preceding treatment of Isocrates, to whose 
works I have especially applied them. They are also assumed 
in the study of Demosthenes that follows. | 


Lc “OR NSS. 
Rare Types. 


It is particularly in the N. C. type that more minute’ classifica- 
tion seems to yield good results. I have first separated out. of . 
the N.C. class what I have spoken of as “rare types” in the 
orators. These include (1) the pure final, as Isoc. Panath. 
184... . ἀποκτεῖναι δ᾽ ἂν τολμήσαντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς τοὺς 
αὑτῶν .... ὥστε καὶ τἀκείνων λαβεῖν ; 

(2) The condition, or stipulation (ὥστε = ἐφ᾽ ᾧτε), as Phil. 188, 
ὅστις ἐτππρύρεῖτον κινδυνεύειν ὥστ᾽ ἢ ταῦτα λαβεῖν ἢ στερηθῆναι 
τῆς ψυχῆς 3° 

(3) The so-called “superfluous” ὥστε, including the clauses 
used as (a) subject or object of an impersonal verb, like ut c. subj. 
in Latin, as Archid. 40, εἰ δὲ πολλάκις γέγονεν ὥστε Kal τοὺς 


1 Ch. Gildersleeve, A. J. P., vil, 168-9, on relation of this to the pure final type. 


“Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. , OE 


pei lor δύναμιν ἔχοντας... . κρατηθῆναι; (b) complementary 
[ὁ a verb, adjective, or noun which in itself implies tendency, 
as Nic. 45, λαβὼν δ᾽ ᾿εξουσίαν ὥστε ποιεῖν ὅτι ἂν βούλωμαι; 
(cf epexegetic, ὁ, 6.) in apposition with a substantive, or as ex- 
planatory of a demonstrative adjective, as Aeg. 47, εἰ. ... 
Kal TOUT αὐτῇ προσγένοιτο WaT ἐπιδεῖν ἄκυρον, κ. τ. A." 

The line between the several varieties included in this group 
15 not always easy to draw. They are all rare in the best period 
of oratory, having, perhaps, something of an old-fashioned or 
conversational flavor. Antiphon and Andocides use them more. 
freely than the others, after the manner of Herodotus and Thucy- 
dides. The list for Isocrates does not include more than twenty 
at most, of which about half are final (with an occasional approach 
to the ἐφ᾽ ᾧτε force).? 

_ From the strictly grammatical point of view, they form an 
interesting study. They are too few in number to have any 
marked stylistic importance, unless their massing in a certain 
oration could be thought of as indicating a deliberate lowering 
of tone, an approach to conversational freedom ; and the fact that 
they do not, from their nature, admit correlation excludes them. 
_ from the scope of our principal inquiry. ὃ 


Logical Inference: Simple Result. 


The great body of N.C. examples can be classified under the 
two heads here given. | 

The first includes those in which the ὥστε sentence expresses 
a logical inference (ὥστε = itaque). The result which it states 
is an opinion of the speaker, logically deduced from what has 


?On the origin and nature of these constructions with “superfluous” ὥστε, 
cf. Seume, pp. 28-30; A. J. P., vir, 170-171. 

*T subjoin the complete list of examples, with an approximate classification : 

(1) Paneg. 83; Paneg. 96; Arch. 98: De Pace 111; Hel. 50; Panath. 184; 
De Big. 12; Trap. 55. } 

(2) Paneg. 111; Nic. 22; Phil. 133. 

(3)—(a) Arch. 4; Arch: 40; Ad Nic. 4; Cont. Soph. 1. (6) Nic. 45@; Arch. 
51; Panath. 251. (6) Aeg. 472; Paneg. 89@, 

The two examples under (3c) might, perhaps, be classed with (3a), since they 
seem to constitute the real subject and object. 


3 


38 "“Oote as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


gone before. It is very commonly followed by such expressions 
as χρή, προσήκει, ἄξιόν ἐστι, δίκαιόν ἐστι, etc. 

_ This type can usually be distinguished, although there is uo 
hard and fast line, from the second, in which the ὥστε clause ‘or 
sentence expresses result of a more objective sort—the thing which 
happens, or tends to happen, as a consequence of what has just 
been stated. 

The first I have called “logical” @ore; the second I have: 
referred to, for the sake of distinction, as “simple tendency or 
result.” As examples, compare two sentences already . quoted 
(p. 11)—for (1), Adv. Huth. 5; for (2), Ad Nic. 49. Further 
examples of the “logical” type are: Paneg. 143, “Ὥστ᾽ οὐδεὶς 
ἂν τοῦτ᾽ εἰπεῖν .... , Ad Nic. 11, ὥστ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν ἀσκητῶν 
οὕτω προσήκει τὸ σῶμα γυμνάζειν ὡς τοῖς βασιλεύουσι τὴν 
ψυχὴν τὴν αὑτων; of the other, Paneg: 142, πεντεκαίδεκα δὲ. 
μηνῶν τοὺς στρατιώτας τὸν μισθὸν ἀπεστέρησεν, ὥστε τὸ μὲν 
ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνῳ πολλάκις ἂν διελύθησαν, Call. 54, ὥσθ' 
οὐδεμίαν ψῆφον μετέλαβον. 

The logical type—the purest form of “detached” ὥστε sentence 
—is of secondary importance for individual style. It belongs 
primarily to the sphere, to the mode of treatment, being an 
index of the degree of attention paid to formal argument. In 
the leading orators it includes by far the greater part of N. C. 
wote’s. It plays a lesser réle relatively to the “simple result ” 
type of N.C. in the earlier orators, in Aeschines, and in some 
of the inferior writers whose works have found their way into 
the corpus of Demosthenes, notably those of the Apollodorus 
group. | 

My main purpose in grouping these “ logical” examples apart — 
has been to determine the extent to which the “simple result” 
class is used, for it is this variety, I take it, which forms the - 
most direct antithesis to the C. type. There is generally free - 
room for choice between the sentence in which the ὥστε clause — 
is expressly employed as the measure of degree, manner, or quality, 
and that in which the expression of tendency or result is merely 
added, without emphasis on the adverbial relation; and this 
choice is altogether likely to be influenced by the rhetorical effect 
inherent in the anticipating correlative. : 


τ te ae, coll? οτος STE. Fa ie 77) aR? ae TO PG: Te, Fin eke ἕ Ὁ: Υ 
SR OG Re utc ΤΣ τ αν Νὰ SS Ni iia a : i COE anh asdiy lk 1 


UT UNIVERSITY 1 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style. in the Orators: 39 


_ According to my classification of examples, the “ logical” ὥστε 
type stands to the “simple result” in Isocrates as 2.71:1. Some 
-.examples, especially those. which involve a statement as to the 
future, stand on the border line and are difficult to classify ; but I 
am satisfied that any count made on this basis will not show more 
than half as many “simple result” as “logical” for Isocrates. 
Taking the number which I have allowed to the “simple result” 
class (35), and comparing it with that of C. ὥστε, the ratio stands 
9.49: 1 in favor of the latter, showing the great preference of this 
author for the form with correlation in expressing the pure con- 
secutive relation.’ 


Peas 3 ogee Ge 


Formulae. 


The division of the C. examples into sub-types is a matter of 
less importance for our purpose, yet some observations may be 
made here which are not without their bearing on the question 
of style. 

The most readily distinguishable group is that of the “ oratorical 


a formulae” (treated by Seume, pp. 51-53, and Berdolt, pp. 93- 


96), in which the ὥστε clause regularly takes the indicative. 
The expressions which present most distinctly the formulaic 
character, and to which I have therefore devoted especial study, are : 
(1) εἰς τοῦτο (τοσοῦτον) ἥκειν ὥστε (the demonstrative being 
used substantively, with or without a limiting genitive, followed 
by various verbs of “coming ”’) ; 
(2) εἰς τοσαύτην... . ἥκειν ὥστε (the demonstrative here 
being used adjectively with some substantive) : 
(3) τοσούτου δεῖν (ὁ. inf.) ὥστε (in which a fact is brought out 
more strongly by denial of the opposite) ; : 


'The “coalesced” οὕτως ὥστε with finite verb, as used by Herodotus (vid. p. 
12, n. 1), having a certain affinity with both the C. and N.C. types, does not 
exist in Isocrates. One instance with the infinitive occurs—Panath. 38, εὐλογεῖν 
τολμώντων οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνως ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ὥστε πολλοὺς ἀντιτάττεσθαι πρὸς αὐτοὺ---- 
where οὕτως stands immediately before ὥστε; but it has its full adverbial force, 
and its position is determined by requirements of emphasis and contrast. There 
is.a similar case of juxtaposition with tro.odros—De Permut. 189 (noted by Seume, 
p. 86), and one with rnA:codros—Bus, 22 (cf. Lys. 24, 4). 


40 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators, 


(4) τοσοῦτον ἀπέχειν τοῦ (c. inf.) ὥστε (with same force as 
the preceding) ; 

(5) τοσοῦτον διαφέρειν (the difference between two pereons or 
things being expressed in two contrasted members of the ὥστε 
clause). 

These formulae, the free use of which is peculiar to oratory,} 
reach their highest occurrence in Isocrates and Lysias, constituting 
almost a third of the C. examples which the latter employs; while 
Antiphon, Andocides, Isaeus, and Aeschines use them much 
more sparingly, differing very slightly from each other as to 
frequency of these expressions. Aeschines not only shows much 


the smallest average occurrence, but, in the two examples which | 


~he does employ,? he departs from the conventional type by 
employing unusual verbs to express the idea of “ coming.”’? 

The laws as to mood in these formulaic. ὥστε sentences, and 
the occasional peculiarities which they exhibit, have been ade- 
quately presented, for the principal orators, by Seume, pp. 51-53. 
Our interest in them here lies in their stylistic significance, and 
from this point of view they fall to be considered as part of a 
larger group in the section which follows. I add merely a state- 
ment of the number of examples of each expression in the two 
erators who use them most largely. 

Isocrates has 29 examples of εἰς τοῦτο. (τοσοῦτον) ἥκειν, 5 
of εἰς τοσαύτην. . .. ἥκειν, 13 of τοσούτου δεῖν, 8 of τοσοῦτον 
ἀπέχειν, ὃ of τοσοῦτον διαφέρειν. 

The list for Lysias is made up of 23 εἰς τοῦτο (τοσοῦτον) 
ἥκειν and 4 τοσούτου δεῖν. Three of the expressions included 


in my study are thus seen not to occur in Lysias, and his great 


fondness for the formula εἰς τοῦτο (τοσοῦτον) ἥκειν comes out 
clearly. He uses it with the limiting genitive in all but two 


cases. In one of these (30, 3) the verb used is the passive of 


1Cf. Berdolt (p. 25) on eis τοῦτο ἥκειν, “foreign to historical prose.’’ 
2 cis τοῦτο, Adv. Ctes. 94; eis τοσοῦτον, Adv. Ctes. 256. 
’The average occurrence to the page of these formulae in six orators stands 
thus: 
Antiphon........ ἀοουτοῦ τος νος . 04 TROCTRLCB. ag. .5 2 ceeasesdncannccess 18.3 
ANOS. csi cincvcerevevees ὁ .03 ΤΑ ΘΙΧΗ; ὐς ον eens roscdoachsedne eee « 04 
ἘΥΒΙ ΔΒ ἐτο νιν υνουρυξέλειες tipéegea? ΟΣ ἈΘΒΟΒΊΠΘΒ ὁ. τον» ἐς εὐ τόνον tinees 01 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 41 


καθίστημι, which I have treated as a verb of “coming” here and 
in two cases in Isocrates (De Pace 84; Paneg. 60). 
τ Under (3) I have included one case of οὕτω πολλοῦ δεῖν 
(Lys. 30, 8); and under (4), one of οὕτως ἣν πόῤῥω τοῦ (Isoc. 
Panath. 77). | 
In one of the examples under (5) there is but a single clause 
_ with ὥστε, but the sense of “differ” is clearly present, and the 
contrasted member is readily supplied in thought from the pre- 
ceding sentence. I have not included under this head cases of 
τοσοῦτον διαφέρειν in which the meaning is rather “to excel” 
than “to differ” (e. g., Paneg. 4; Evag. 24; Evag. 71). There 
are a number of expressions which, like this, are frequently fol- 
lowed by ὥστε in Isocrates, but they do not quite attain to that 
regularity in phrasing and in mood which would entitle them to 
rank with the formulae here treated. 


General and Particular. 


In studying these formulae, I was struck with an observation 
of Seume’s (p. 51) that, in these formulaic sentences, ‘the facts 
stated in the ὥστε clause have more force than the causes from 
which they spring;” and that, “while, formally, qualities or 
conditions are illustrated by their effects, in actual use this form 
- serves to set forth particular facts.” I was led to examine other 
ὥστε sentences to which this description seemed equally applicable, 
and, finally, to mark off a type of which the oratorical formulae 
ον eonstitute only a group which has crystallized into a definite form 
~ and has a fixed law of mood in the ὥστε clause. This type I 

have called “general + particular.” It is that form of C. ὥστε 
sentence in which an act, quality, or condition is defined, not by 
‘some fact or circumstance which flows from it, but by giving a 
particular example of the act, quality, or condition. Compare, in 
English, “I am so fortunate that I am envied by my friends” 
with “I am so fortunate as to have many friends.” In the latter 
case there is no true external result, as in the former. The re- 
lation is, to our feeling, more one of comparison than of consequence 
proper." : 


1 Cf. Seume, p. 40. 


42 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


So, in Paneg. 29, οὕτως ἡ πόλις ἡμῶν οὐ μόνον θεοφιλῶς ἀλλὰ — 
καὶ φιλανθρώπως ἔσχεν, ὥστε. . .. οὐκ ᾿εφθόνησε τοῖς ἄλλοις, 
τα. το λ., the φιλανθρωπία does not so much result in not envying ; 
it consists in it. Set this off against the sentence quoted on p. 10 
(Hel, 37), or the one in Paneg. 70, .... . τοσοῦτον .... 
διέλιπον ὥστε ἐν TH μεταξὺ... .. ahead σ νοη: and οἵ, for 
further examples of the G. + P. type, Paneg. 24, 79; Hel. 47, 62; 
Antid. 16; Aeg. 31; Lys, 1.10 : 3.33.! 

In such sentences, as Seume points out in connection with the 
formulae, the ὥστε clause is likely to be more important than the 
main clause which precedes it, and which serves as a sort of 
generalizing introduction. Of course, the question of the relative 
degree of stress falling on the main and ὥστε clause is one that 
may often suggest itself, and the decision of which, resting largely 
on subjective considerations, must be essayed with caution. Where 
there is a true cause and effect relation, the first member has a 
prima facie claim to at least equal rights with the second; but 
here, where the consecutive relation is rather formal than inherent 
in the thought, the main clause is more naturally felt as a mere 
preface to the particular statement, which gains weight and emphasis 
by the suspense. 

Not infrequently the context is such as to strengthen greatly the 
impression that the specific statement in the ὥστε clause is that. 
on which attention is concentrated, and for the sake of which the 
sentence was introduced. It may form one of a series of particular - 
statements in a narration, or be in marked antithesis to such a 
statement in a preceding sentence or member, while the generaliza- 
tion may be only a repetition of one previously made and be 
quite unnecessary from the standpoint of thought.? 

The fact that the finite verb is the prevailing mood-form with 
ὥστε in this “G.+ P.” type—as it is virtually the only one 
employed in the special subdivision of. “ formulae” already con- 


sidered—helps also to emphasize the importance of the ὥστε | 


clause as an independent statement in these sentences, 


‘As already intimated, almost the entire group of ‘oratorical formulae” 
exemplify this relation—e.y., Bus. 14, In De Big. 16, Loch. 8, the eis τοῦτο 
idiom seems to be followed by a clause of true result, but such instances are 
sufficiently rare. 

2\For illustrations of this point, cf. Paneg. 24, 29, 79. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 43 


The importance of this type rhetorically I conceive to lie in the 
fact that it can be multiplied almost at will, for a great many 
particular statements are susceptible of this sort of generalizing 
or characterizing introduction. An author like Isocrates, who is 
fond of responsive effect and periodic structure, will, when the 
relation of cause and effect, of fact and consequence, lies naturally 
in the thought, choose the form of the οὕτως-ὥστε sentence for its 
expression. But he can do more; he can cultivate the correlative 
consecutive period by the free use of this “general + particular” 
form of statement, and gain by the circumlocution not only 
responsion, but emphasis and other desirable rhetorical effects. 

That the type should flourish especially in the more ornate 
kinds of writing, is, then, the thing to be expected, and it occasions 
no surprise to find that, while Isocrates employs it largely every- 
where, it is in the Political and Epideictic classes that he avails 
himself of it’ most freely. In these two divisions, according to 
my count, over 40 per cent. of the whole number of C. ὥστε 
sentences are to be assigned to the G.-+ P. type, while, in the 
_other three departments, it constitutes something less than 30 per 
cent. It may be held, of course, that the use of this kind of 
sentence is determined by considerations of thought rather than ~ 
style; that it merely offers a convenient form for stamping an 
act, in the process of narrating it, with its appropriate character. 
That this element enters largely into its use is not to be disputed, 
and it may be noted here that there are certain private orations 
of Isocrates and Demosthenes, and especially of Lysias, that show 
a use of the type exceeding that of the more elaborate compo- 
. sitions. Here the dominant motive would seem to be the desire 

_ for characterization, the narrative being employed to “make 
points” on the conduct of one of the parties in the suit. As 
instances of this sort may be cited Lys. 1.10; 3.33; 14, 42; 
Isoc. Aeg. 31. A large use of the type may thus be a mark of 
the manner of a “ plain” speaker, especially one whose prevailing 
tone is that of naive indignation ;' but in such cases the type 
appears in a simple, colloquial form, the clauses are short, and 
there is a tendency towards the infinitive in the ὥστε clause. 
A close study of the various instances, in their sentence-structure 


-1Cf, Lys., Or. 1 and Or. 3. 


44 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


and context, must be our warrant for seeing in the use of this 
form of duplicated statement in the more finished works of 
Isocrates something more than the desire to characterize—the 
influence of those distinetly rhetorical motives which count for 
so much with this author. It must suffice here merely to call 
attention to an apparent tendency which deserves more minute 
study and fuller presentation, especially in connection with the’ 
works of Isocrates and Demosthenes. 


EQUIVALENTS. 


A study of a construction from the standpoint, of style should 
make some account of those expressions which are logically equiva- 
lent—especially if these have sufficient elements of similarity to 
suggest a more or less conscious choice between them and the 
expression under consideration. We cannot, of course, undertake 
here a study of all the different forms in which the relations of | 
causation and consecution appear in the language, but we can 
examine those which have enough in common with the con- 
struction in hand to warrant us in thinking of them as substitutes 
for it. These, again, may claim consideration from two different 
points of view. Where the “equivalent” construction is one that 
illustrates the same rhetorical tendency as the one under con- 
sideration, it becomes necessary to note the extent of its use in 
order that we may add the cases of the equivalent to those of 
the dominant construction, and thus give a more exact statement 
of the degree to which the tendency in question is cultivated. 
Tf, on the other hand, we find similar elements combined in a 
way which produces an opposite rhetorical effect, it becomes highly 
important to measure the relative strength of these opposing 
tendencies. : 

Of the additional forms for expressing the consecutive relation 
which I have selected for study, the greater number come under 
the first head—wi. e., they are both logically and rhetorically © 
equivalent to the (correlative) consecutive sentence. The last to 
be considered is an example of a close logical equivalent in which 
some of the features of the οὕτως- ὥστε sentence occur but an 
opposite rhetorical tendency is illustrated. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 45 


The expressions which are here examined for the orators have 
been treated for the first time (in another domain) by Berdolt, 
whose work appeared after I had gathered most of my material 
under this head. 


“ (v4 
Οὕτως--ὅστις. 


The closest logical and rhetorical equivalent for the οὕπως- 
ὥστε sentence is that in which a οὕτως in the main clause finds 
its complement in a relative clause following.’ Grammatically, 
the relative goes back to its antecedent and adds a description ; 
but in sense it joins on to οὕτως, with the adverbial effect of a 
clause of tendency, expressing the degree of a quality already 
predicated of the antecedent. It would seem to bea mixture of 


two constructions—rtis ἔστι, ὅστις... . . and τίς ἐστι οὕτως--- 
ὥστε ..... A large use of this form of sentence would require 


-us to attribute to a given author—e. g., Isocrates—an even greater 
fondness for the correlative consecutive period than is indicated 
by the statistics for the regular οὕτως-ὥστε sentence alone; but, 
in point of fact, the construction plays an insignificant part in 
the whole work of this orator. I have collected all the examples 


of this type of equivalent which he employs, and find but nine 


in all. 
οὕτως--ὅστις (a) c. fut. ind. : 
Paneg. 185, τίς yap . .. οὕτως ῥᾷάθυμός ἐστιν, ὅστις οὐ 


μετασχεῖν βουλήσεται. . , Panath. 66, τίς ἐστιν οὕτως ἀφυής, 
ὅστις οὐκ εὑρήσει . . 


(b) ο. opt. -+ ἄν: 


Paneg. 98, οὐδεὶς, . . οὕτως ἔχει δυσμενῶς, ὅστις οὐκ ἄν 
ὁμολογήσειε.. . . ., De Permut. 210, μηδὲν οὕτως ἄν φήσειαν 


εἶναι φαῦλον, ὅτε. .. οὐκ ἂν εἴη βέλτιον, 218, τίς οὕτως ἐστὶν 
> / “ > XN 3 / Ἢ > / > 2 \ 
ἀναίσθητος, ὅστις οὐκ ἂν ἀλγήσειε, 222, οὐδείς ἐστιν οὕτως ἀκρατὴς, 
ὅστις ἂν δέξαιτο. .. ,” Evag. 35, οὐδεὶς γάρ ἐστιν οὕτω ῥάθυμος, 
“ NN / 3 

ὅστις av δέξαιτο. . . 


1 See examples below. 

* This passage is bracketed by Blass (Teub. ed.); but he holds it to have been 
_ originally composed for the place by Isocrates. 

ὃ Οἵ, Panath. 172, ovdéva . . τοσαύτης ἀμαθίας εἶναι, ὅστις οὐκ ἂν ἐπαινέσειέ. . 


46 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


(6) ὁ. pres, ind. : 


Hel. 2, τίς ἐστιν οὕτως ὀψιμαθὴς, ὅστις οὐκ οἷδε... 


(d) ο. past ind.: 


Paneg. 113, τίς οὕτω πόρρω". . . Hv... , ὅστις OUK. «2s 
ἠναγκάσθη... 

Of these nine examples, the Panegyricus and De Permutatione 
each furnish three. It will be noted that all these examples 
adhere closely to a conventional type—that seen in Shakspere’s _ 
“Who so base who would not be a Roman?” The main clause 
always denies—either directly or by means of a rhetorical question— 
the existence of a certain class of persons or things, and the 
tendency referred to in the dependent clause is accordingly always 
a theoretical one, never passing into actual result. This apparent. - 
equivalent for the οὕτως- ὥστε sentence is therefore employed only 
within a certain restricted territory ; and within this territory it 
reigns supreme. Isocrates never uses οὕτως-ὥστε in sentences of | 


\ 


this class, but always ottws-ooTus.' | 

My collection for the’ other orators is not exhaustive ; but they 
seem to make even less use of it than Isoc., with the possible ex- 
ception of Dem., who uses it rather freely in certain orations—e. g. 
De Symm. He also allows, not infrequently, the οὕτως-ὥστε con- 
struction in sentences of this type. 


Τοιοῦτος--ὅς. 


A less clearly defined type of relative consecutive sentence is 
that in which the relative has a correlative τοιοῦτος or τοσοῦτος in 
the main clause—the type treated by Seume, pp. 14-18, where 
numerous examples are presented. Of course, this combination 
does not necessarily involve the consecutive. relation ; but very fre- 
quently the relative clause sets forth the generic character of its 
antecedent in such a way as clearly to express tendency and suggest 
the ὥστε clause as a natural equivalent. Sometimes the notion of 
result is brought out more clearly by the use of prepositions ex- 


‘For an example of the regular consecutive clause in such a connection, ef. 
1886. 8, δ1---δοκεῖ δ᾽ ἄν τις ὑμῖν οὕτως ἀναιδὴς. . . γενέσθαι, ὥστε μηδὲ ἐπιδοῦναι 


. . «5 ef. also Dem. 8, 44 (v./. 8s); 10, 15; 10, 43; 19, 115. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 47 


pressing cause or means, as in the phrase ἐξ dv; sometimes it 
resides partly:in the modal form employed in the relative clause, 
as in the use of the optative or indicative with ἄν, or the generic 
future, which employs μή as its negative. 

The following examples will serve to illustrate some of the 
familiar forms of sentence in which we may infer the consecutive 
relation more or less distinctly.. | 
Iso. Soph. 21, οὐδεμίαν ἡγοῦμαι τοιαύτην εἶναι τέχνην, Hrig.... 
ἂν καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐμποιήσειεν. 

Paneg. 109, τοσάυτην δὲ χώραν παρελίπομεν, ἣ πάντας ἂν ἡμᾶς 
εὐπορωτέρους ἐποίησεν. 

Paneg. 189, οὐ πρέπει... τοιαῦτα λέγειν, ἐξ ὧν ὁ βίος μηδὲν 
ἐπιδώσει. | 

Paneg. 76, ὅστις τοιαῦτα τυγχάνοι πράττων, ἐξ ὧν αὐτός TE 
μέλλοι μάλιστα εὐδοκιμήσειν, (cf. Evag. 80.) 

Plat. 82, τίνα τηλικάυτην εὐεργεσίαν ἔχοιεν ἂν εἰπεῖν, ἥτις 
ἱκανὴ γενήσεται .΄..; 

De Pace 107, τοιᾶυτα προῃρούμεθα πράττειν, ἐξ ὧν Λακεδαι- 
μόνιοι δεσπόται τῶν ᾿ λλήνων κατέστησαν. 

De Permut. ὅθ, ὅτε τοιούτους γράφω λόγους, οἱ καὶ τὴν πόλιν 
βλάπτουσι... 

Nic. 5, τοιούτῳ πράγματι δυσμενῶς ἔχοντες, ὃ... πλείστων 
ἀγαθῶν αἴτιόν ἐστιν. 

One οὐ two of the examples in this list are of a sort in which 
the equivalence to a ὥστε construction is at least questionable. 
There are others in which a relative clause complementary to — 
τοιοῦτος OF τοσοῦτος serves to describe an antecedent without any 
suggestion of characteristic tendency. And again, care must be 
taken to exclude from this consideration instances in which a rela- 
tive clause after τοιοῦτος or τοσοῦτος is not complementary to it, 
but additional and non-restrictive, the demonstrative pointing back 
to an idea previously expressed. An attempt to present a com- 
plete list of true equivalents four ὥστε under this head would in- 
volve discussion in not a few instances, and I have not undertaken 
to give such a collection here ; but the number of cases where such 
force is sufficiently clear is donde ble and we are justified in 
putting it down as a familiar form of expression in the orators, and 
one which serves to accentuate their partiality for the expression 


48 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


of the consecutive relation through the aid of correlation. It is 
safe to add that the use of this form of equivalent in Lysias is by 
no means so great as in Isocrates. 


lal i“ 
Tocovtov—odcov. : 


Another form of equivalent for the ὥστε clause is to be found 
in the use of the correlation τοσοῦτον-ὅσον in certain sentences— 
chiefly those which set'forth the degree of difference between two 
persons or things. Phil. 51 may serve as an illustration: τοσοῦτον 
δὲ διαφέρουσιν, ὅσον ἐκεῖνοι μὲν πρὸς ἥττους αὑτῶν [πολεμοῦσι], 
οὗτοι δὲ πρὸς κρείττους. Here we have a general statement of 
difference, followed by two contrasted clauses setting forth opposite 
courses of conduct, the juxtaposition of these two giving the effect 
of a specific statement of difference. The connection between the 
general and special statements is mace, logically enough, by τοσοῦ- 
τον--ὅσον, a formula of comparison.’ Yet it is not uncommon to 
find sentences which involve exactly the same thought relation _ 
employing the cunsecutive formula (e. 9. Call. 34), so that we are 
fully justified in regarding τοσοῦτον-ὅσον and τοσοῦτον-ὥστε, in 
sentences of this type, as equivalents. The rhetorical effect of these 
two pairs of correlatives is the same; but the number of instances 
of the τοσοῦτον--ὅσον formula is not sufficient to make a very sig- 
nificant addition to our list of correlative periods based upon a real 
or apparent consecutive relation.. It becomes, however, a matter 
_ of curious interest to observe the preference shown for one or other 
of these virtually equivalent expressions by the orator who employs 
them most largely. I have collected all the sentences in which 
difference is thus expressed with τοσοῦτον-ὥστε or ὅσον in Isocra- 
tes, classifying them under the following heads: 

1. Statement of difference in character, condition, or conduct by 
means of contrasted clauses, (a) with διαφέρειν----οἴ, Call. 34, Phil. 
51 (quoted above); (ὁ) with other expressions—cf. De Pace 47, 


/ \ / a / - 
τοσούτῳ δὲ χείρους ἐσμὲν τῶν προγόνων .... ὅσον ἐκεῖνοι μὲν 
ὄοντο δεῖν κινδυνεύ ἡμεῖς δ᾽ θωτοῖ μεθ 
. @ovTo δεῖν κινδυνεύειν, ἡμεῖς δ᾽... ... μισθωτοῖς χρώμεθα 
στρατοπέδοις. 


1 ΘΟ a comparative relation is seen, in its simplest form, in the English 
sentence, “ He lives as much as a mile away.” 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 49 


2. Expression of difference in terms of one member of the com- 
parison—the contrast being implied, not expressed, in the sub- 
ordinate clause, (a) with δέαφερειν ---- οἵ. Panath. 55, τοσοῦτον 
᾿ ἐκεῖνοι διήνεγκαν ἀνομίᾳ καὶ πλεονεξίᾳ τῶν προγεγενημένων, ὥστ 
οὐ μόνον αὑτοὺς ἀπώλεσαν ...., ἀλλὰ καὶ Λακεδαιμονίους ... 
ἐνέβαλον ; (Ὁ) with other expressions—cf. De Permut. 235, τοσ- 
OUT@ μᾶλλον τῶν ἄλλων προσέσχον ἀυτοῖς TOV νοῦν, ὥστε Σόλων 
μὲν τῶν ἕπτα σοφιστῶν ἐκλήθη... ... Περικλῆς δὲ δυοῖν ἐγέν- 
eTo μαθητὴς .... 

The type marked (1) (a) amounts to a fixed formula, being a 
rhetorical circumlocution of the “general + particular” sort (a 
single example, in Isocrates, seems to show true external result), | 
and always taking the indicative in the dependent clause. Here 
Isocrates alternates between ὥστε and ὅσον, apparently influenced 
only by desire for variety. He has 5 examples with éate—De 
Pace 85, De Big. 35, Call. 34, Aeg. 17, De Pace 127—and 4 with 
dcov—Paneg. 83, Phil. 51, Phil. 112, De Pace 54. | 

In the case of the type (1) (6)—contrasted clauses introduced 
by expressions other than d:adépevyv—Isocrates prefers the form 
with ὅσον, employing it 9 times, as against the 4 instances of 
ὥστε which have any claim to be classed under this head. It may 
be noted, too, that the sentences with ὅσον have a decidedly uni- 
form character, all but one being expressions of degree of difference 
as to a particular quality and employing a comparative adjective 
or adverb. They also incline to the “Ὁ. + P.” type, and all take 
the indicative. Τοσοῦτον and τοσόυτῳ are used indifferently, 

The examples are—for ὥστε, Phil. 125, Arch. 94, Hel. 16, 
De Perm. 22; for ὅσον, Ad Dem. 33, Ad Dem. 38, De Pace 43, 
De Pace 47, De Pace 148, Bus. 19, Bus. 32, Soph. 20, De Big. 36. 

The examples collected under (2) (a) and (6)—in which a differ- 
ence is expressed with a single subordinate clause instead of two 
contrasted ones—are of.a less uniform character than those treated 
under the two preceding heads. Like those under (1) (0), they 
are nearly all expressions of degree of difference as to a given 
quality—superiority or inferiority. In several of them, the sub- 
‘ordinate clause is so worded as to make a distinct comparison ; 
in most, the specific character of one member only is set forth 
and the contrast is implied. The “general + particular” type 


50 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


is less closely adhered to, a number of cases showing true external 
result. 

But, for the sake of completeness, it seemed best to include 
here all those sentences which have the common element of 
expressing a difference and in which it is at least conceivable that 
ὅσον, as well as ὥστε, might have been-used. In point of fact, 


the former is all but non-existent, for Isocrates, in sentences of ᾿ 


this class. Under (2) (a)—with dcapépexv—we find 7 examples 
with ware—Paneg. 4, Paneg. 64, Paneg. 98, Evag. 14, Evag. 24, 
Evag. 71, Panath. 55—none with ὅσον. Under (2) (6)—with 
other expressions—we have 8 cases of &are—Bus. 29, De Big. 26, 
Evag. 67, Hel. 60, Paneg. 50, Paneg. 147, De. Permut. 235, Call. 
48—to one of dcov—De Pace 96. 

The proper sphere, then, of τοσοῦτον-ὅσον as an equivalent 
for ὥστε is in the expression of difference by means of two con- 
trasted clauses ; and here, outside of the fixed formula τοσοῦτον 
διαφέρειν, it is decidedly the dominant construction. 

The use of these correlative forms for expressing difference 
or comparison is a special characteristic of Isocrates, among the 
orators, and we scarcely meet them again except in Demosthenes. 
Lysias shows not a single example of the fuller form, with con- 


trasted clauses, and only one of the incomplete type—24. 18, 


τοσοῦτον δὲ διενήνοχεν ἀναισχυντίᾳ τῶν ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων ὥστε 
ὑμᾶς πειρᾶται πείθειν. ... 

That Isocrates should be partial to this form of sentence is 
quite in keeping with the general tendencies of his style. . The 
balance afforded by the contrasted clauses—when the fuller form 
is employed—and the responsive effect of the correlative period 
would alike commend it to him. The influence of the latter 
consideration comes out still more clearly when we take into 


ο΄ aecount another method of setting forth a difference, which may 


be regarded as an equivalent for τοσοῦτον-ὥστε and τοσοῦτον- 
“ 
Οοσον. 


Τοσοῦτον Paratactic. 


We occasionally find an expression of difference in which 


τοσοῦτον points forward to a pair of contrasted statements, the 


latter being added paratactically, without the ὥστε or ὅσον 


- ~ in, 
See 
aa ae 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style im the Orators. 51 


which, in the type treated above, completes the syntactic con- 
nection and marks the relation as comparative-consecutive. Two 
instances of this I have noted in the corpus of Lysias—2.16, 
τοσοῦτον δὲ εὐτυχέστεροι παῖδες ὄντες ἐγένοντο τοῦ πατρός" 
ὁ μὲν yap... . οὐκ οἷός τε ἦν τιμωρήσασθαι . . οἱ δὲ παῖδες 
αὐτοῦ .. .. εἶδον. . .; θ. 17, τοσοῦτο δ᾽ οὗτος Διαγόρου τοῦ 
Μηλίου ἀσεβέστερος γεγένηται. ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ. . ., οὗτος 
δὲ. ... But Or. 6—Against Andocides—is a work of very 
doubtful authorship. | 

It may not be without significance that Lysias, in the only clear 
case in which he thus uses τοσοῦτον to anticipate and emphasize 
a formal contrast, employs this non-correlative, paratactic: form ; 
while Isocrates, in the much greater extent of his work, and with 
his fondness for using τοσοῦτον in the way referred to, never 
avails himself of it—that is, he never misses the opportunity to 
round his period by. means of correlation.' 


A v4 
Τοσοῦτον--ὅτι. 


There is still another formula for expressing a specific difference 
with τοσοῦτον, of which Isocrates furnishes a single instance— 
Call. 59, τῶν μὲν πλείστων τριηράρχων τοσοῦτον διήνεγκον, ὅτι 
ο μετ᾽ ὀλίγων ἔσωσα τὴν ναῦν... While the ὅτι clause is per- 
haps best explained as causal, the thought-relation is practically 
the same as in those sentences, of the single clause type, treated 
above which show ὥστε or ὅσον. We have here neither para- 
taxis nor,'yet correlation, in the strict sense; but the rhetorical 
effect is closely akin to that produced by the latter construction.2 


Τοιοῦτος--οἷος ὁ. inf. 


The combination τοιοῦτος- οἷος followed by the infinitive—a close 
logical and rhetorical equivalent for τοιοῦτος-ὥστε---οἰδ almost 


1 The nearest approach to this form of expression that I have noted in Isocrates 
is in Areop. 69, where τοιοῦτον points forward to a pair of contrasted clauses 
introduced by γάρ. 

21 have observed only one other instance in the orators in which τοσοῦτον- 
ὅτι might be ranked as an equivalent for τοσοῦτον-ὥστε, though not, as above, in 
an expression of difference—Ps, Lys. 8. 20, κερδανῶ δὲ τοσοῦτον, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν 
ὑμῶν ἀπαλλαγεὶς ἐλάχιστα κακῶς ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν πείσομαι. 


52 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


entirely absent from the orators.’ I can produce but three ex- - 


amples—Isoc. 15, 99 ; Dem. 21, 202; Aesch. 3, 243. Its employ- 
ment in these sentences hardly suggests rhetorical motives. In 
only one example are the correlatives sufficiently separated to give 
balance, and in all, the infinitive follows immediately the relative. 
But the non-correlative form of the construction, with τοιοῦτος 
omitted, is still rarer. I have noted only two examples—both in 
Isocrates—11, 16; 8, 21. 

Of the δον τ θη τὰν use οἵ τοσοῦτον-ὅσον c. inf. Isocrates 
furnishes the solitary example—De Permut. 98, τούτοις... -. 
τοσοῦτον μόνον ἐχρώμην, ὅσον ὀφθῆναι διαλεγόμενος. 


INVERTED EXPRESSION OF RESULT. 


Lastly, we come to consider a method of expressing the con- 
secutive relation which has hitherto received little attention—the 


type illustrated in Dem.. 18. 11, οὐ δὴ ποιήσω τοῦτο" οὐχ οὕτω. 


τετύφωμαι, OY 22. 68, ἄλλα δ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ὕβρικεν, ovd’ ἂν ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν. 
τοσαῦτα τὸ πλῆθός ἐστιν. Here we have the same paratactic 
structure as in the form with τοσοῦτον examined above; the con- 
secutive relation is inferred rather than expressed, and the demon- 
strative, with the aid of juxtaposition, is made to do the work of 
full syntactical correlatien. But there is here the further element 
of inversion of the usual order. In the other form of equivalent, 


τοσοῦτον pointed forward to a result to be stated immediately, 


after ; in the examples just quoted, οὕτως and τοσαῦτα point back 
to one already expressed. 


This latter arrangement is one of especial importance from the 
standpoint of the present study. It gives the effect of liveliness — 
referred to by Gildersleeve*® as belonging to marked instances of | 


inversion. The thought of the hearer is suddenly arrested by the 
demonstrative and thrown back upon the preceding sentence, and 


a rapid mental readjustment takes place as the relation of cause 


and consequence becomes apparent in this unaccustomed sequence. 
‘The element of “surprise,” of “ interjectional effect,” thus intro- 


1Cf. Berdolt, p. 99—“ rare in Plato.” 
ἢ Cf. ὅσον, without correlative, followed by pte. in Panath. 150. 
3 Vid. supra, p. 10, for quotation, 


Ray = 


ate RD pis 
SP Sree 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators, 53 


duced puts this form of result in marked opposition rhetorically, 
not only to the fully developed correlative period, but also to the 
N.C. ὥστε and to the paratactic equivalent treated above, in both 
of which the adherence to the well-established order of cause and 
effect makes it easier to supply the missing οὕτως or ὥστε, and 
preserves the deliberate orderliness of the consecutive sentence. 
In the earlier part of this work, the N.C. ὥστε has been spoken 
of as an “afterthought,” because the way is not prepared for it 
by an anticipating correlative; but in this postponed, or retro- 


_ spective, οὕτως we have an “afterthought” effect of a still more 


striking character. 

I have thought it worth while to endeavor to make a full col- 
lection of the instances of this form of equivalent in the seven 
orators studied. The consecutive relation being here ἃ matter of 
inference, there is room for some difference of opinion as to 
whether certain cases are true equivalents for the ὥστε con- 
_ struction, especially where the relation is rather of the “ general 
and particular” sort than result in the strict sense; but I have 
aimed to include in this list only examples about which there 
ean be little question. In considering this phenomenon in Plato, 
Berdolt, p. 98, treats separately sentences employing οὕτως and 
‘those showing τοιοῦτος or τοσοῦτος---ἃ distinction which seems 
to be unnecessary for our present purpose. The list of passages 
follows : 

Isaeus.—2, 21; 2, 37; 5,10; 5,11; 7, 21; 7, 28; 11, 6. 

Lysias.—1, 2; 4, 32; 2, BT; 3; 13; 10, 28 ; 12, 84; 13, 31. 

Antiphon. 26: 35 6, 50. 

Aeschines.—1, 56; 1, 157; 2, 125; 2, 150. 

Isocrates—4, 16; 4, 87; 4, 141; 4, 157; ἡ δ Tap 1S. 
15, 107; 15, 134; 16, 37. 

Davoren 8, 25; 14, 24; 18,11; 19, 267; 22, 68 ; 24, 3; 
45,2; 27, 25; 27, 81; 80, 6; 80, 8: 80, 14; 30, 38. 

It will Ν seen that the doneuetion is not a great favorite with 
the orators in general. Andocides furnishes no example, unless 
we include one which occurs in 4, 283—an oration which is denied 
to Andocides by the most careful critics. The average occurrences 
to the page are so small, and the margins of difference between 
them so slight, that a table made on this basis yields no striking 

t 


54 ἽΩστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


results. It is sufficient to note that the orators stand, as to ὁ 
average occurrence, in the order in which they are placed in the 
list of examples given above. [8868 makes the largest use of it 
(average occurrence .05), Lysias comes next, with .03, while the 
others differ by much smaller margins, Isocrates and Demosthenes 
standing at the foot of the list, with practically the same average 
occurrence—.02. | | 

As this form of expression is most directly opposed to the 
C. ὥστε construction, a comparison of the relative frequency of 
these two might seem to be the truer index of style, and sucha 
table is here submitted. 


Ratio of Inverted Result : C. ὥστε. 


PTI DN OM occa cases exevees 1:3 Ὑ ΥΒΙΆΒ: ἐν κοῦφον του vices: 1:15 
ΤΕ ΘΟ ἡ css kesksouchsccccencs 1.::δ.ὅ Demosthenes. ........0.c006 1:16 
AGCHCHINGS: ἐνὸν συ φυνο δῶν δὸς 1: 8.5 ΤΒΟΘΓΑ ΘΗ,» sis cadaceccceetian 1:37 


The differences are more perceptible than in the former com- 
parison, based on average occurrence. Antiphon heads the list in 
‘relative employment of the equivalent: form, but his use of both 
forms is exceedingly small. Isaeus comes next, while Demosthenes 
and Isocrates again stand lowest, although the latter shows a far 
smaller relative use of the equivalent than the former. The 
comparatively free use of this abrupt, vigorous form of expression 
in the pleadings of Isaeus, and its rare occurrence in the rounded 
smoothness of Isocrates, seems to be fairly characteristic of their 
respective styles, and is the most significant feature exhibited by 
the tables. 

A glance at the examples cited above for Demosthenes will 
show that nearly half of them come from the “ guardianship 
orations ”’—Orr. 27-31. Thus, while the works of Demosthenes, . 
as a whole, stand lowest in average occurrence of the “inverted 
result” form, and next to lowest in the proportion of it to C. ὥστε, 
these speeches stand easily first in both respects—average occur- 
rence .15—ratio 1: 2.33; that is, these early works show a marked 
partiality for a usage which is characteristic of Isaeus as against the 
later writings of Demosthenes himself. This is quite in keeping | 
with other indications of the influence of Isaeus on the style of this 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 55 


group of orations. The comparison has here been made between 
the “ guardianship orations” and the entire work of Demosthenes, 
‘ in which these speeches are included. If we were to compare this 
group with the remaining works only, the contrast would, of course, 
come out still more strongly. 


MOODS. 


With regard to the difficult question of the moods after ὥστε, 
little more can be done here than to indicate and illustrate some of 
the methods which promise the best results in such an investigation. 

Two points have been touched on in the earlier portions of this 
work—(1) that the use of finite and infinite has no such clear. 
significance for style as that of correlative and non-correlative ; 
(2) that, for the orators, the most obvious significance which the 
mood test does possess is due to its coincidence, to a certain 
extent, with the correlation test, since those authors and works 
which show a marked preference for the N.C. ὥστε also exhibit 
a general tendency toward the finite verb, as compared with the 
opposite class. To determine, then, the independent rhetorical 
value of the moods, it would seem best to eliminate the factor of 
correlation by studying their relative use within the C. and N.C. 
types separately. 

Before proceeding to do this for Isocrates, notice must be taken 
of two elements of difficulty in presenting statistics for the use of 
the moods with ὥστε. The first lies in the occasional omission 
of the verb in the ὥστε clause, which would seem to remove the 
- examples in question entirely from the scope of the present inquiry ; 
τς but an examination of the passages often reveals clear indications 
as to the form of verb which the author had in mind. On such 
grounds—usually the employment of οὐ as the negative—I have 
ventured to restore the finite verb in all but 7 of the 20 cases 
of ellipsis which occur in Isocrates. These 7 instances I have 
excluded from the count as indeterminate.' 


1Jn these cases also there is a strong presumption in favor of the finite verb, 
since they belong almost entirely to the category of “logical inference” —éar’ 


56 “Oore as an Index of Style in the Orators. 

The other matter which demands a word of explanation is the 
treatment of ὥστε clauses dependent on infinitives in indirect 
discourse. That oratio obliqua influence is extended over the 
ὥστε clause equally with the principal in such cases, I hold to 
be a fixed law, at least for the orators ; and where the infinitive 
is obviously a mere accommodation to this necessity, it seems 
fair to classify it according to the original conception, as finite. 
The tests which I have accepted as establishing the influence of 
indirect discourse on the verb following ὥστε are (1) the future 
infinitive; (2) the negative ov.’ In all other cases I have given 
the infinitive the benefit of the doubt, because the infinitive is | 
always possible after a&ore—even in the combination infinitive 
+ ἄν. The finite list includes Isocrates’ two examples of opt. 
without dv—Trap. 11 (due to ὅτι in O. Ὁ.) and Arch. 84 (assimi- 
lated to opt. in protasis). His solitary use of the participle— 
Paneg. 64—has been excluded from the count. 


Pursuing the methods indicated with reference to cases of 
ellipsis and oratio obliqua, we find that Isocrates uses, in C. 
examples, 170 finite verbs to 148 infinitives, and in N.C. 112 
finite to 38 infinitives; that is, the finite verb is a little more 
frequent than the infinitive in the former class of sentences 
(1.15:1), while in the latter its use is almost three times as 
great (2.95:1). But even these figures do not fairly represent 
the relation existing between the two mood forms for our present 
purpose. When we attach stylistic significance to the use of 
finite or infinitive with ὥστε, we assume a more or less free choice 
between these forms. But in certain connections the language has 
adopted a fixed, almost mechanical, rule in favor of the infinitive, 
and so we find the finite verb excluded. by considerations which 
I have elsewhere (p. 9) ventured to call “ extra-stylistic.” 


ἄξιον, ὥστε Sjrov,etc. But even the rule for logical inference has its exceptions; - 
and in the face of sporadic instances like Panath. 94, ὥστ᾽, εἰ μηδὲν εἴχομεν 
BAKO 8 Fh eG {i ὦν νι , ἐκ τούτων ῥάδιον εἶναι καταμαθεῖν, we are hardly 
justified in assuming that De Permut. 40, 6. 9., S07 ᾽εξ ὧν αὐτὸς οὗτος εἴρηκεν, 
ῥάδιον καταμαθεῖν, would, if the verb were expressed, certainly take the indicative. — 

1 On the certainty of these as marks of O. O. influence, cf. Gildersleeve, A.J. P., 
vi, 523, vul, 178; Seume, pp. 57-63. All my investigations confirm me in 
accepting their position. 


"Qore as an Index of Style in the Orators, 57 


These cases may be classed under two general heads, according 
as the use of the infinitive is called for by the nature of the ὥστε 
clause itself, or of the main clause on which it depends. The 
former class includes those uses of ὥστε which I have elsewhere 
grouped, for the sake of convenience, under the head of “rare 
types” in the orators—final, conditional, and the so-called “ super- 
— fluous” aore—subject or object clause, epexegetic, etc. In the 
second group I place all those instances in which the ὥστε clause 
~ depends on a conception which is not itself stated as a fact and 
hence does not carry its consequence as a fact. The effect οὔ 
certain kinds of sentences—negative, conditional, interrogative— 
in limiting ὥστε to the infinitive has been generally admitted.’ 
There has been less explicit recognition of other categories which, 
in Isocrates at least, are regularly followed by ὥστε ο. inf.— 
the imperative, the infinitive (other than O. O.), and the participle 
(including O. O., as well as the attributive and circumstantial uses.) 

Now, excluding from the list of examples of C. ὥστε with 
- infinitive 52 in which the mood seems to be determined by the 
character of the clause or expression on which the ὥστε con- 
struction depends, and from the N.C. infinitives 8 instances of 
the same sort, with 15 of the “rare types,” in which the infinitive 
is clearly inevitable, we find Isocrates using, in C. sentences, 170 
finite verbs to 96 infinitives, and in N.C., 112 finite to 15 in- 
finitives. That is to say, where either mood is possible, he 
employs almost twice as many finite verbs as infinitives (1.77 : 1) 
when the correlative is used, and over seven times as many 
- (7.471) in sentences which lack correlation. 

These figures amply confirm what has already been said as 
to the close connection between the finite verb and the N.C. 
form; but they also show that Isocrates’ large preponderance of 
the finite rests not alone on its free employment in this type of 
sentences, but on a clearly marked preference for it also in the 
C. type. | 
_ An examination of the table given below will show that this 

preference for the finite verb in C. examples is maintained quite 


1Cf. Gildersleeve’s apt statement of the principle as “failure to meet the 
conditions antecedent,” A. J. P., vu, p. 173. 


58. ΕΞ Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


regularly throughout the separate orations. The finite predomi- 
nates in every oration in the Political and Forensic classes (leaving 
out of account the insignificant fragment Lochites), though the 
ratios vary from a bare majority to 5:1. The Antidosis, the 
longest. of all Isocrates’ works, shows exactly the average use 
of 1.75 fin.:1 inf. It may perhaps serve to emphasize the unre- 
liable character of the moods as an indication of style to note 
that the widest variation in their use in any single department 
occurs in the Epideictic class—a department which we have seen 
to be the most consistent in its general stylistic features. The 
ratios here (in C. examples) range from 3:1 in favor of the finite 
to 2.33: 1 in favor of the infinitive. And a study of the consecutive 
sentences in certain orations—the Evagoras, 6. g.—will show how 
apparently arbitrary is the choice of mood—finite and infinitive 
interchanging constantly in sentences in which the result clause 
sets forth actual facts of past or present time. 

For all this, the general drift toward the finite form with ὥστε 
in Isocrates is a phenomenon of some interest. We see that, in 
spite of the historical vantage-ground and ever present possibility — 
of the infinitive, the finite form, with its emphasis of fact, had 
come to be preferred in the most formal of the orators, even in 
that type of sentences in which the preceding correlative might 
seem to keep alive most distinctly the notion of tendency and the 
subordinate, adverbial relation. 3 

In -seeking to interpret a little more closely the αὐ πολήνς 
οἵ Isocrates’ use of the moods, it has seemed worth while to see 
what help could be got from the subdivisions of the C. and N.C. 
types already referred to. For the C. side, the use of “fixed 
formulae ” at once suggests itself as a factor in his large use of 
_ the finite verb—since here the indicative is regularly adhered to, 
Isocrates shows but three instances of the infinitive following 
these formulae (excluding three other cases in which the infinitive 
is made necessary by the nature of the leading clause). Of the 
170 examples of C. finite which he employs, 49 (or considerably 
over one-fourth) are instances of these formulae. 

If we choose to set these aside, on the ground that the mood, 
in these stereotyped expressions, is used without consciousness, 


% i γι 
% F 
Nc, (a a 


ae " aay | 
᾿ Ἔλα Σ ose 


"“OQore as an Index of Style in the Orators. 59 


we still have predominance of the finite verb, though compara- 
tively slight—(1.26 : 1). 

I am not inclined, however, to exclude these formulae from 
_ the comparison of moods. In the first place, the finite verb is not 
absolutely necessary (see exceptions noted above). And further, 
its almost exclusive employment in these expressions seems to 
me to be due to the same considerations which have determined 
its use in a large number of other sentences which are not formu- 
laic—that is, to a tendency to use the indicative in sentences in 
which the ὥστε clause consists of a particular statement set forth 
with especial emphasis by means of an introductory one expressing 
the same fact in a more general way. The large use of this 
“general and particular” type in Isocrates would, then, to a | 
considerable extent, explain his preference for the finite verb. 
And since these sentences partake largely of the character of cir- 
cumlocution for rhetorical effect a connection between the finite 
verb with ὥστε and the formal and elaborate style of composition 
becomes evident. 

Again, outside of the strict G. + P. type—i.e., in cases where 
the ὥστε clause expresses a proper result of’ the fact stated in the 
main clause—the context not infrequently shows the assignment 
of cause to be rather incidental, while the stress of the sentence 
falls on the fact set forth in the result clause, which thus naturally 
takes the indicative. In such cases also the finite verb is seen to 
be an accompaniment of a more or less rhetorical use of the con- 
secutive sentence. Even beyond this, in sentences in which the 
ὥστε clause is truly subsidiary to the main thought, it may be 
that the expression of the result as fact rather than tendency was 
felt as giving something of weight and impressiveness in keeping 
with the genius of Isocrates; but we must beware of seeing too 
much. The shift from one mood to the other is, in general, so 
easy, so apparently arbitrary, that, if we are to suppose conscious- 
ness at all, the determining considerations must have been of the 
slightest and most subtle sort. I have tried to limit my view to 
those which have to do most clearly with style in its broader 
aspects. I would only add my conviction that it is in the Ὁ. 
type that the essential distinction between ὥστε with the finite 


60 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


verb and the infinitive is especially to be looked for. The con- 
_ ditions are here most uniform, and the problem is reduced to its — 
simplest terms, 

Turning now to the N.C. examples, and considering them also 
in the light of the subdivisions previously employed, the par- 
ticular source of the large use of the finite verb in this class of 
ὥστε sentences is readily apparent. Of the 112 examples of N. C. 
with finite verb occurring in Isocrates, 93 (or 83 per cent. of the 
whole number) have been set down as representing the “ logical ” 
type,’ in which the result is of a subjective character, being an 
expression of the opinion of the speaker. The great majority of 
these wore sentences are abstract judgments as to what is just, 
necessary, fitting, possible, etc. I have included here also some 
statements as to what must have happened in the past or is likely 
to happen in the future which seem to be advanced as inferences 
from what has gone before—especially when they are preceded 
by a statement of a general principle or by a series of propo- — 
sitions which, with the ὥστε sentence as conclusion, form a sort 
_of syllogism.’ 

When ὥστε is thus used as a particle of inference—a mere 
“therefore ””—the sentence which it introduces becomes a detached 
proposition and naturally takes the finite verb.* It is, of course, 
not always easy to distinguish between this type and the ordinary — 
objective result expressed with finite verb; but, allowing for all 
possible differences of opinion, it is still clear that the great bulk | 
of N.C. @ove’s with finite verb come from this logical use of the 
particle, which is so highly developed in Isocrates and several other 
orators. Leaving it aside, the use of N.C. ὥστε in Isocrates is, as 
we have seen, remarkably slight. Excluding cases of inevitable 
infinitive, I have found but 29 examples which I should class as 
“simple tendency or result”—an average of less than 1.5 to an 
oration. It is in this subdivision that the choice of the moods is 


1'Vid. sup., p. 37. . 

*Cf., for the latter type, Euth. 5, quoted above, p. 11. 

51 have noted some five instances in which the “logical” relation seems to 
co-exist with the use of the infinitive—Areop. 5, Call. 10, Panath. 94, Euth. 4, 
Arch. 28; but in some of these cases special grounds for the infinitive might be 
made out. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 61 


most free, and their use accordingly of most interest; but the 
whole number of examples is so small that generalization is of 
diminished value. Still, it is worth while to observe that the 
finite maintains its predominance, in a slightly greater ratio than 
in the larger class of C. sentences. Of the 29 examples, 19 show 
the finite verb and 10 the infinitive. This slight use of N.C. 
ὥστε with infinitive in expressing simple result—about one to 
to two orations—is one of the most noteworthy features of the 
usage of Isocrates.' 

As to any essential distinction between ὥστε with finite verb 
and with infinitive, the N.C. examples furnish little more help 
than the C. The observations I have been able to make are 
largely of a negative character. I note that the cases are very 
rare in which ὥστε with infinitive has any truly adverbial or 
restrictive force such as might lead the reader to supply a “latent 
correlative,” expressing degree or manner. ΑΒ a rule, the con- 
secutive clause is added to a statement which is absolute and 
complete in itself. The arbitrary punctuation of editors has, as 
Berdolt observes, no significance for our purpose, and the length 
of the ὥστε clause seems not to be a determining factor in the 
use of the moods. Of course, there are different degrees of 


τς “detachment.” Some results are less obvious, less closely con- 


nected with what precedes, than others, and in such cases the 
finite verb seems more natural; but a study of the actual usage 
in Isocrates shows slight application of this principle, and it would 
be rash to attempt to predict the mood which will be found in 
any given case. Such a pair of examples as Aeg. 25 and 39 are 
fairly typical of the apparent indifference as to mood. We must 
needs be content with our theoretical distinction between conse- 
quence conceived as “inherent tendency ” and as “actual result,” 


1[t may be of use to those who wish to pursue this study further to cite the 
_ sections containing the examples which I have classed as “simple result”? with 
infinitive: Paneg. δῶ, 168@, 111, Arch, 39, 66, Areop. 37@, Ad Nic. 49, 
Panath. 146, Aeg. 39, Euth. 18. Arch. 51 may be included if it is not taken as 
epexegetic. . 

Even in this short list, several cases will be noted in which the infinitive 
might be said to be required by the nature of the leading clause—influence of 
participle, oratio obliqua, ete. | 


- 


62 , Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


and fall back, for illustration, on the corresponding indifference 


in the use of “so that” and ‘so.as to” in English (in cases | 


where no new subject is introduced) —“ substituting y for x,” as 
Gildersleeve puts it (A. J. P., vit, p. 168). 
Apart from questions of thought-relation, there is one con- 


sideration having to do more strictly with formal style which ὦ 


I would venture to suggest as a possible factor in Isocrates’ 
apparent preference for the finite verb in the “simple result” 
type. However little difference we may feel between a result 
expressed with finite verb and with infinitive, the use of the 
latter necessarily involves a certain grammatical nexus, and the 
ὥστε clause with the infinitive always remains, in form at least, 
a part of the preceding sentence. A sentence thus extended by 
the “tacking on” of a consequence exhibits a “loose” structure 


OP Re Sts a fh. 
5 ig 


as opposed to a “periodic,” in the modern sense. The general ἡ 


tendency of Isocrates is toward the latter type; and the more 
complete detachment of the result clause (N.C.) with finite verb, _ 


by which it forms practically a new proposition, may have recom- 
mended itself to our author on rhetorical grounds—two “ periodic ” 
sentences being thus attainable in the place of a single “ loose.” 
If we add, as previously suggested, the greater distinctness and 
impressiveness of the fact set forth with finite verb, and take 
into account the possible influence of the freely used “ logical ”’ 
type in making the finite verb a familiar form with N.C. ὥστε, the 
leaning towards it exhibited by Isocrates is in part accounted for. 

I insert here tables showing Isocrates’ use of the moods in 
the C. and N.C. types respectively, the statistics for each oration 
being given as well as the aggregates. In the C. examples with 
finite verb, the formulae have been separated from the non- 
formulaic sentences, which are marked as “ ordinary ” examples ; 
while in the infinitive list, the designation “ free” is used to mark 
cases where a choice of mood lay open, as opposed to those in 
which the infinitive was “necessary”? on account of the nature 
of the main clause. 


1Tt may be noted that in most of the examples of N.C. ὥστε with infinitive 


(see list of passages above) the consequence set forth is, in point of fact, ἀπ΄ 


actual result in present or past time. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


63 


In the N.C. table, distinction is made between the “ logical” 
and “simple result”? types in the case of both ;finite verbs and 
᾿ infinitives; and in presenting the examples with infinitive, the 
“necessary” and “rare types”’ are classed separately, though in 
both the mood obeys fixed laws, and they are equally in oppo- 
sition to the “free” use exemplified by the examples under the 
other two heads. 


IsocRATES. 
ΘᾺ 
FINITE. INFINITIVE. 
FORMULAE. | ORDINARY. | TOTAL. NECESSARY. | FREE TOTAL 
Demonicus.......... ἄν ae. ee {κε 1 1 
Ad Nicoclem...... ae ck 1 1 sds 1 
Nicocles.. .......c08 1 2 3 ΤῊΣ 4 4 
ΟΡΡΔΏΘΡΎΓΙΘΙΙΒ ...... 2 14 16 δ 14 19 
Philippus........... 4 8 12 5 6 11 
τ Archidamus........ 5 5 10 4 2 6 
Areopagiticus ..... 4 5 9 2 6 8 
D6. Pace,;....ccoceve 4 11 15 7 4 11 
Evagoras. ......0000 3 9 12 ie 14 14. 
Helen 1 11 12 1 4 5 
PRRIBEPIC SS odacécussce 2 1 8 Ὶ Ἵ 8 
Panathenaicus..... 8 γέ 15 a 5 12 
Cont. Sophistas.... 2 1 3 2 1 3 
Plataicus.........0 ἢ 1 8 x 2 2 
De Permutatione. 2 19 21 8 12 20 
TIS BIGIB, asec gees 1 Ἧ 8 1 6 7 
Trapeziticus, ...... 1 5 6 a 1 5 
Callimachus....... 1 4 5 1 1 2 
Aegineticus........ 1 7 8 2 5 ti 
ΤΙ ΟΟ 168... iccssccee or 1 1 ἐπι 1 ji 
Euthynus........... 2 2 1 i 1 
49 121 170 52 96 148 


64 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


N. ΔΝ 
FINITE. INFINITIVE. 
Simple Rare nbs 
Logical. Result. “Total. a Necessary. > Total. 
i Logical,| Ble 

Demonicus......cc0s| see 1 1 Ἢ: ve ee ak 
Ad Nicoclem...... ry uy 2 i ves 1 2 
INFCOCIOB ckSag'sca ces 1 at 1 wee 3 δ 3 
Panegyricus........ 4 2 6 3 1 3 7 
Philippus........... 10 2 12 ] joe 1 
_ Archidamus........ 6 at 6 4 1 2 7 
Areopagiticus..... 2 εἰς 2 pie 1 1 2 
De -Pace. ...ccciccces 7 3 10 1 ace ete ] 
Evagoras.......ce0e. 7 1 8 πος τὰς ay 
MECLOR ον ldsoes πὰ 1 ὡς 1 1 ταὶ 1 
BOSS. isecesece: 3 ake 3 whe cae sna 
Panathenaicus..... 5 1 6 1 ν᾿ 1 1 5 
Cont. Sophistas.....) 1 1 2 1 as ie 1 

, Plataicus... εν, εὐ νι ὦ 4 | 5 a eee δὸς ibe 
De Permutatione..| 14 2 16 ar 1 ΠΣ 1 
De Bigis.....5....+. 3 ἯΙ 3 1 τος ee rik 
Trapeziticus........ 2 ἊΣ 2 1 τι ae I 
- Callimachus........ 7 1 8 τὰ ae 1 1 
Aegineticus.... 5 2 7 és 1 wos 1 2 
TiOHIteS.... csececces 2 wht 2 ae ΓΝ τὰ 
Euthynus............ 7 2 9 1 1 2 
93 19 112 15 8 5 + 10 38 

co 1h 


A similar classification of the examples found in Lysias is given 
herewith.’ In the C. list, the ratio of finite to “free” infinitive 
is somewhat greater than in Isocrates (2.62:1); but it will be 
noted that the C. finite list is more largely recruited from the 
type of ‘fixed formulae” in the former author than in the latter. 


In the N.C. examples the situation is reversed, finite standing to _ 


free infinitive as 4.57:1—a much smaller ratio than in Isocrates. 
The larger average occurrence of the “logical” type in Lysias 
might, taken alone, have suggested an opposite result; but a 
comparison of the moods in the “simple result” type will show 
the main source of the difference. The larger average occurrence 


1 The collective statistics only, not those for the separate orations. 


"Oore as an Index of Style in the Orators. — 65 


of this type in Lysias, and his far higher proportion of infinitives 
within it, as compared with Isocrates, are the most striking 
features of this table. The latter phenomenon seems to be a 
characteristic of the less formal orators; but here again the num- 
ber of examples is too small to warrant broad generalizations. 

[1 have not attempted to distinguish between the genuine and 
spurious works of Lysias in presenting these statistics. The 
number of suspected orations is small, most of them are quite 
brief, and there is a lack of agreement as to their status among 
the best critics; but in one instance I have excluded an oration 
from the table—Or. 20, (For Polystratus), This is a work of 
᾿ more considerable compass, and a strong case has been made out 
against it, to which the usage as to ὥστε adds considerable con- 
firmation. Its peculiarities are, (1) a remarkably large ratio of 
N.C. to C.—12:1; (2) in the N.C. examples, a very small pro- 
portion of “logical inference” to “simple result ””—3:9; (3) in 
the last-mentioned type, a marked preponderance of the infinitive 
over the finite verb—6:3. In all these respects, it exemplifies 
tendencies of Lysias as against Isocrates, but the degree of variation 
from the normal use of Lysias is far greater than that between 
Lysias and Isocrates. 


LYsIAS. 
C 
FINITE. INFINITE. 
ἈΠ OFM NIAC. ..0:secees Pea dacedsess 23 INGCOREATY...000tse0eensecacoeteys 12 
REMODEL Y's ἐν λορον ουκτὶ ἐφοῦν εὐ ἐνό 45 PTOB: iii sascceccsoieastsuveetactin 26 
et Re ets CP AI ες 68 ΠΡ ταν ee 88 
N.C. 
FINITE. INFINITIVE. 
BMMPICAL δον scnssecevssacaisessoed BS. Rare: Ty pees avasedscepsdicsergenvescance 5 
Simple Result........ Geireete 1} NORORARUY ty iyesenie δον ονον μοι νοῦ save ΤΆ 
ΕΣ 1 ὑπο τ τα ices 5 
F ΦΞῚ ἧς 14 
Total Φο οοοοοοοοοοοφοοοοοοφοθ θά dip Simple Result... ἄν 
FORE ove ccasaccciveiecees easesnekes 22 


The statistics of the moods for Isaeus show a close correspond- 
ence, in most respects, to the usage of Lysias. The ratio of finite 


66 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


to “free” infinitive in C. examples is practically the same— 
2.57:1; but the part played by the “formulae” is smaller, these 
expressions constituting little over one-fourth of the C. finite 
examples, as against one-third in Lysias. 

In the N.C. type, the preponderance of finite over free infinitive 
is a little smaller than in Lysias—4.3 :1,; this, too, in the face of 
a somewhat larger average occurrence of the “logical” variety, 
which, in Isaeus, adheres strictly to the finite verb. Here, again, 
the explanation lies in the greater relative use of the infinitive in 
the “simple result” type. In this respect Isaeus shows an even 
greater advance on Lysias than Lysias on Isocrates, and comes 
much closer to the use in the oration For Polystratus (Ps.-Lys.), 
just referred to, and, I think it will be found, to that of the minor 
orators generally. His very slight use of the “rare types”— 
final and substantive,—his entire lack of the elliptical use, and his 
single case of the participle (9, 16) may be noted in passing. 

Of course, in Isaeus we have a much smaller number of ὥστε 
sentences from which to draw conclusions than in Lysias ; but, for 
the “simple result” type, to which attention has been especially 
directed, the difference is not very great—(19 cases in Lysias, 14 
in Isaeus). 


ISAEUS. 
C 
FINITE. INFINITIVE. 
ΠΟΥ ΑΘ 4 ἐδ τραν εν ence Séde yokes 5 NGCOSBETY ,ν. ἐωο τον νι τον εξ sehen 14 
OPGRIATY is ἡ δνρθνονν εν οονθονοσο 18 WUC: το τοι κεν ονν τε λει σον ς δ 7 
ΠΟΥ ἐδ τονε νην οὐ ψος 18 DObal circsevercecbobson secs 21 
N. CG: 
FINITE. INFINITIVE. 
ΤΙ ΡΉΘΑΙ ον τὸν όνου σον ον 89 Rare Types. ἐὸν ssnsicescsonsneseocs 2 
Simple Result............ 4 NGCRBBAN εν τὺ lptadbessssesheo0% 1 
oe Logical....... Wiphiesonstecwe 

F 

LOCAL οτν εν ον ον ὐϑδονο 48 oe Simple Result............ 10 


Total: sccsacsvesecaiy sepeceden 13 


Ὥστε as an Index of. Style in the Orators. 67 


"QSTE IN DEMOSTHENES. 


To treat exhaustively the ὥστε usage in so large a body of 
writings as the orations of Demosthenes is not practicable within 
the limits assigned to the present work. Yet the very extent of 
his writings, affording as they do a sufficiently broad basis for 
_ generalization, as well as his importance as an orator, has made 
it seem worth while to present the statistics of his usage, and to 
emphasize a few of the more striking results. 

Two ends are kept especially in view in this brief treatment—(1) 
to see how far the connection between certain phases of ὥστε usage 
and certain tendencies in style which has been made out from a 
study of the other orators—especially Isocrates—is exemplified in 
Demosthenes ; (2) to see how far the use of ὥστε can be made 
available as a test of genuineness, by a comparative study of it in 
the genuine works of Demosthenes and those attributed to him but _ 
generally admitted to be spurious. It will be more convenient to 
consider this latter question first. 3 


COMPARISON OF GENUINE AND Spurious WorRKS. 


The large body of orations formerly attributed to Demosthenes 
but now generally regarded as spurious demands separate treat- 
ment from the genuine works. A comparison of the ὥστε usage 
of these two groups is interesting.. I have distinguished genuine 
and spurious according to the classification given by Butcher in © 
the appendix to his “‘ Demosthenes,” * which reflects closely the 
judgment of Blass. 

In frequency of occurrence they do not differ materially. The 
genuine works contain 328 examples of ὥστε, an average to the 
page of .47. The spurious show 218 cases, an average occur- 
rence of .54. 

But when we come to apply the test of correlation a marked 
difference appears. The genuine works show a ratio of C. to N. C. 
of 1.89 :1 ; the spurious, of 1:1.06. Demosthenes’s use of the 


1“ Classical Writers’ ”’ Series, D. Appleton & Co. 


68 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


C. type, relatively to the N. C., is thus seen to be about twice as 
great as that shown in this collected body of writings by his imita- 


tors or unknown contemporaries. The superiority of the correla- 


tive test, as an index of style, over that of average occurrence is 
again demonstrated ; and its possible value as a test of genuineness, 
where sufficiently lange masses of material can be brought into 
comparison, is strongly suggested. 


1. COMPARISON WITH OTHER ORATORS. 


Confining our attention now to the genuine work of Demosthenes, 
we may note that, in the matter of average occurrence, the reaction 
from a large use of the particle first observed in Isaeus—when 
compared with Lysias and Isocrates—is still more marked in 
Demosthenes, who occupies in this respect an intermediate position 
between Isaeus and Aeschines.! 7 

With regard to fondness for the correlative with ὥστε, to which 
attention is mainly directed in this chapter, it will be observed? 
that Demosthenes shows a marked reversion toward the usage of 
Isocrates, to whom he holds second place (Isocrates 2.21:1; 
Demosthenes 1.89:1), while the orator who comes next in this 
respect is his rival and contemporary, Aeschines (1.48:1). We 
ean not here attempt an analysis of the various elements which 
enter into the use of C. ὥστε in Demosthenes; but if we may 
assume a general connection between a large use of this type and 
carefulness in the construction of the period, the position indicated 
by these figures is certainly not far from that which we should © 
expect to find him occupying. Especially interesting is his depart- 
‘ure from the usage of his immediate predecessor and reputed master, 
Isaeus. It is instructive to note Blass’ statements in comparing 
the two,* that Demosthenes “ emphasizes and perfects the oratori- 
eal” and “avoids the colloquial,” especially λέξις εἰρομένη such as 
is common in Isaeus; and that he makes a marked approach to 


the grandeur and fulness of epideictic style, “so far as was possi- τὸ 


ble for the practical orator.” 


1Vid. Table of Average Occurrence, p. 6. 
3 Vid. Table, p. 11. Sri, p. 146. 


: Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. ᾿ 69 


2, COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT CLASSES. 


I have adopted Butcher’s classification of the orations of Demos- 
thenes under the three heads Deliberative, Public Forensic, and 
Private Forensic. As to the characteristics which distinguish 
these three groups we may again avail ourselves of the judgment 
of Blass, who says, in substance, that the Deliberative class have 
the strongest and most elevated style, in keeping with the dignity 
of their subjects; at the opposite pole stand the Private orations ; 
while the Public Forensic show a mixture of these two stylistic 
tendencies. But as these last deal largely with public matters of 
grave import and were designed for wide audiences we may expect 
_ to find them showing closer affinities with the former class than 
with the latter. 

The degree of preference for C. ὥστε shown by the several 

classes corresponds to this estimate of their rhetorical character. 

The Deliberative has C. to N. C. as 2.19:1; the Public Forensic. 
» as 2.10:1; the Private Forensic as 1.37 : 1. 


COMPARISON OF ORATORS CLASS By CLASS. 


We have compared the general ratios of C. and N. ©. in Demos- 
thenes and other orators. An examination of the usage of these 
writers in similar classes would seem to be a still more exact test ; but 
data for such a comparison are only partially available. Blass? 
recommends as standards of comparison in studying the style of 
Demosthenes, Isocrates and Thucydides for the Deliberative class, 
Isocrates for the Public Forensic, Isaeus and Lysias for the 
Private orations. If, as already suggested, we take the Political 
oratory of Isocrates as. the closest correspondent to the Public 
Forensic in Demosthenes (on the score of theme and oratorical 
handling rather than technical character), we can make a com- 
plete comparison between these two orators; and we find a re- 
markably close correspondence, class for class, in the matter of 
_ correlation : 


1pp. 80-81. * op. 81-82. 


5 


70 “Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


TROCTALER:.. cco .c0ees Polit: -2.26 052s ool icen For. 1.54: 1. 


Demosthenes... εἴα: πω εσν ; ee Priv. For. 1.37:.1. 

Again, the usage of the Private Forensic class in Demosthenes 
may be compared with the general ratios of Isaeus and Lysias, since 
practically all the work of these two' belongs to this type οὔ 
oratory." The result shows how much more freely Demosthenes 
employs the correlative even in this field—Demosthenes 1.37 :1; 
Lysias 1:1.17; Isaeus 1:1.51. As compared with Isaeus, his 
use of it (relatively to N. C.) is twice as great; and we may 
again refer to Blass, who says? that “ Demosthenes departs much 
further than Isaeus from the customary simplicity of the Private 
speech.” Blass is speaking here especially of diction; but the 
observation will be found, I think, to hold EY well with refer- 
ence to the structure of the sentence. _ 

Finally, a more exact measure of the difference between the 
genuine and spurious works of the Demosthenean corpus may be 
had by comparing them in that department to which the greater 
part of the spurious orations belong—the Private Forensic. The 
ratios of C. to N. C. for this class stand—Genuine 1.87:1; 
Spurious 1:1.49. While the pseudo-Demosthenean private speeches 
thus stand in marked contrast to the genuine, it will be noted that 
the ratio of C. to N.C. which they collectively exhibit is almost 
exactly that of Isaeus—Ps. Dem. 1:1.49; Isae. 1: 1.51. 


INFLUENCE OF TIME OF COMPOSITION. 


Demosthenes’ activity extends over a sufficiently long period to 
suggest a development of style and to permit us to raise the ques- 
tion whether time of composition may not enter, as an additional 


Τὺ is true that, according to the technical division of Attic law, the greater — 
part of Lysias’ orations were written for public suits—i. ὁ. what we should call » 
criminal cases. But most of these were virtually private suits, as coucerning only § 
the interests of individuals, and their composition shows the simple, business-like 
style of the strictly private orations, rather than the elaboration and rhetorical 
finish of the so-called ‘“ Public Forensics” of Demosthenes, which belong to 
political cases and were addressed, not merely to a jury, but to a large audience 
of interested citizens. Of. Jebb, 1. p. 163; 209. 

2m, p. 85. | 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators, 71 


factor, into his usage in any given respect. Blass seems to assume 
that it does, and indicates the genera] direction of this development 
when he says (p. 97), “in sentence-structure the approach to the 
. epideictic only followed gradually.” Cf., for a similar statement, 
p. 146. Again, p. 80, he says that not only the classes, but the 
times, are to be considered, “‘ both in general and within the several 
classes.” Time, then, might be considered a factor in that lower 
ratio of C. to N. C. ὥστε which we have just noted in the case-of 
the Private orations; for this class, taken as a whole, is early, 
relatively to the other departments. 

Within the several classes, Blass notes this development espe- 
cially in the case of the Deliberative and Private orations. The 
perfected stage of Deliberative oratory is seen, he says, in the 
Philippic speeches—the first of which was spoken in 351. The 
peculiar excellence of the Private Forensic class is exhibited about 
350; differences are shown according to earlier or later compo- 
sition ; “ later, the form approaches more nearly that of the Public 
_ Forensics.” * 

_ I have, accordingly, taken the year 350 as a sort of central point 
in Demosthenes’ development and grouped together, for purposes 
_ of comparison, the orations of ascertained date (following Blass’ 
_ ehronology) which precede and those which follow that date. The 
_ collective ratios of these two groups, in the Deliberative class, show 
a striking difference in ὥστε usage: for the earlier period, C. to 
N.C. as 1:1.83; for the later, as 5.8:1. The Private Forensic 
class shows an increase in correlation less marked, yet quite per- 
ceptible: C. to N. C. as 1: 1.3 for the earlier group, as 1.75:1 for 
the later.2. The gain in the Public Forensic class is insignificant : 
1.88:1 for orations before 350, 2.28: 1 for those after. 


1 pp. 80-81. 

?Of the Private orations, the Conon has been excluded from this calculation 
as being of uncertain date. If it should be placed after 350 (following Clinton— 
vid. Blass, p. 457), the ratio of C. to N. C. for the later period in this class would 
be considerably increased. 


72 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


3. COMPARISON OF ORATIONS WITHIN THE CLASSES. 


Tables are here presented showing the number of examples of 
C. and N. C. ὥστε in all the orations of Demosthenes and those 
attributed to him. The orations of each class are arranged in order 
of preference for the C. type, the genuine and spurious works being 
grouped separately in each of the three classes. The chronological 
order of the genuine works may be made out from the dates in- 
serted, which represent the judgment of Blass. The length of each 
oration in Teubner pages is given, deduction being made for copies 
of documents and other extraneous matter. The ratios of C. and 
N. C. for the several classes are also appended. 


Wr WEWOON ORS 


DELIBERATIVE. 
Genuine. 

ΟΝ 
ΟΠ e's 5 cls asres’s Nes νον οὐ τον S41 Be. δεν εις 18 Ῥρζ οὐδὲ 
PRINS. shy waner vane pastaseyseseces aD eceshateons OF ss sge2 ΤΣ 
De Reb. Cherson. .......... Sen See bopeauscs ence Vicks. sas 5: 
Ἐπ λον cis spo ἐν εξ σαν ἐνόντα Ὁ eT Peer SE 2: 
DIOR ss sn ρροην ον κου δε ρος» ἐνὸς OAD ιν ἐχορονίνι Θυ τ εῶΝ τὰ 
ἘΠΕ ORS ρου shen Cavaco στὸν ἐδ τὸν DOL ΜΕΤ ΤᾺ 134...... 3: 
MEU A BE eo asiaceessetissese asics’ ἐλ ν ΤΟΥ ΒΖ υνρο ἐξ μὸν a 
De SymmMor.'';.......se0e PE es a BOF rrycoveces 103...... 2: 
18. 0, 0 see an ὡς ee ne Pe DAD ceed cadee es if erate θὲ: 
Eto Ribot, Eabert. 0s clk ΤῊ OO Leiavsey i ceue Od scsces ὃ: 
Pro ΜορΑϊδθυ so). vcasespecsecaves OOD vineysteg-es Orewa sine A 


Ratio for class, 2.19: 1 


Spurious. 
De dodds om Alex,  fccctuisite: veh seddewcntens ὩΣ ΘΑ χες cokes 4: 0 
DROP RI 6 sas ssscvaves secu. νον νσμον νέον 3. 92... 4: 0 
Eepists PMG το χες δος ἐὐοοοοοορννι Στ ρον οῦς ge nbess Gi isk 8 ee ee 
PTS 34 4 Daag ati ie a er POMPE eC RSE 18 occ δι: 
eRe FAIREST. veces τα Ἐν soc one ewew Ὁ veh teey δ8..-.... 3: 2 
4 


Be PLATO, hed ih oceechartusadiesecscbe ἐμ η δόδν ἐφ ελδὴ 104...... 2: 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 73 


Pusuic FORENSIC. 


Genuine, 

C. N.C. 

ΗΝ i csdsGsccvevsveaceceseess O44 BL Osc 594 pp... 24: 4 
SERNOCT UCB 0s νιν ον διῶ; BO Os ἀν Ἐφ 55 cet 15: ὃ 
BS I i on ΤΡ σον ΤᾺ 963. cha 30:15 

PR PIPLOMEELCI 55's (685 ocbscte accuse oes ἐδ τον προ; νὰ 634...... 2 ͵1δι:. 8 
PIBDRINORI 6c ον λουν εὐ ρος κε deesuetes ΟΖ ΑΝ, ἐν ἐν γαθο zy Grey} 8: 5 
Pee: COTOUA. οὐ οὐ ds oe secegnegetace Boveri δ νεῖν 19:18 
PEMA TUALOUOR. 10.2 cesesetgeonssecetace 11s Paper Aaa 223...... 11:8 
Ratio for class, 2.10: 1 

Spurious. 

ἜΣ ριον UA! deca ρα γον κν .savsnredeeesabe Di saccas 10: 4 

πο σοι θην 335055, cuted ccanty <oerevadecd coeds ἘΠΕ “τὰς DRS Ὁ ἊΣ 
LORS Og a aA te τιν τ. 915 τ μὰ 4: 6 
ποτ λῶν εἰ ll Ket eea das tis venus 344...... 5:17 

PRIVATE FORENSIC. 
: Genuine. 

MIO ISS acoder sescGdasecccdeqe) isccediodeseseus 14 pp.... ) 11256 
PROD ANUS AG ...5, Ὁ ΡΥ 349-8 B.C... 224...... 6: 2 
PCO t i osscuaauoslgnaeasstoeccts bef. 350...... ΝΣ SES υξς 
ΠΑ ΘΉΘΙΧΗΝ,Σ oie cnc. ἣν ἐς φυνσονν 5 ere 163,... 2:3 -Ὁ 

aS Le Υ οὐ ρο ee a Rass 1) acne Meee 1:.0 
Ἔλα Ῥηδέγη oc seks ehackcns ζορὸς VOU seavdess Ronee af eV eS 3:2 
MABOLUS Apc vvckess ἐντὶ νυ νὸς OAS sscssescnes 19 Seen 9: 2 
PUMUCIMIACAUS....c050s secreoces vss 346! (2). sakes ON a 3: 2 

De Cor. Trierarch....:........0. DEL <OTiielscas Oss sje ves 3:°2 
ΠΗ ΕΑ νιν veseses'ene ss sndess 32 hs Seeepoae 7S ΝΡ 7: 6 
PD ΑΝ με Ss cicésdisevsnecsuess BOSaccver disc: τ τας Ὁ 
OOM ἘΠ ts ρ κεν ἐ οἱ κε κου κοο ες oS Rees Pen ee i preps: Pee τ' 
ΠΟΘΩ͂Ν ATS fis casts aches earedces BOON ρος νον Ὁ) δ γεν 4: 7 

π΄ CINCO AL. oe ci csu ak ἐνδενονὸ δὸς οὶ ΘΌΖον ον λον οὶ 1 eee 3: 6 
Ὁ PIMOIAB Ls si ccsevescastecargecesos cee bef. 350....... δ 0: 8 


Ratio for class, 1.37: 1 


74 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


PRIVATE FORENSIC. 


Spurious. 

C. NC. 

ΑΗ, 40.0.6 06000500 σύν νον, Takes bause'e dentine 9 pp {11 52) 
Perotheniis ....v.ecececsuceesse ἘΣ cae rasve hp oases ὉΥΜΑ ΔΑΓ δὰ Peres, Us 
ΤΟΝ ΕΥΤΗ ΕἾΤΑ yea icc cres Maeeh usitee~ ὐνον νὰν ekaies Seep 7 dati F 
POBACTUD DUIS μὸν τ νου tere ouies wtdee a: Uapedde τ ἐν εὐ δ PEE Ls i 
BSOGOL AIS Grier e clic eh τε ἐν aches. τπνο τ rays ettck 164...... 11:8 
DION VEOGOLUS.. 7,25, caeeel eared shes Mesetesie¥eneadead Lt pees 4: 3 
OW AE WORT. socaceebosthiasvces. “eceessecaanuueet 1434...... 232 
MEPIS DG we ad ρον ν ρον ἐκ - <vceled ἐφενα φάνην ΤΡΜ ΚΣ 1 
ὙΠΟ ΠΝ λα τον υν δον, νοῦν, τε οθυ ΤΑ ἐς ΤΣ. ἐνὶ 1.:.-.ὼ 
ΠΕ ΠΡ ΣΙ ΒΙΗΝ ἀν τε ΤΡ Ἐν, νθούεν νόον, sbacsaeeuirganiesl, ΤΑ ΣΕ ἀρ δι 2: 4 
PA DINUNINOUOR UA οὐ τ Sieseastecscies  sbesscegaustaves 154... ες i338 
Boek ote BFE CME IG οτος ahcdv sab dele LOSS scos6 S25 & 
EKuerg. and Mnes...... oe aNeia® SS cidvnssen los vt ASE esses 4:13 
ΠΟ ΘΙ. τερον Kitvicbegeeeses  “Syaewe<eawsbaces LS προς 1: 4 
EACOPINUUE δον ce aey eh iricsccics ve. ὐνενόγοις web τονε rh a ae | Ee 
MMM OME OS tes Cnc teenies sie exesei Ἀπ εν vossaneeds ὶ ἐς Manos 2:10 

EPIDEICTIC (Spurious) 

δε χε ΤῊ iva ἐν ὅτ υν ραν αν αι τα τς ἀνα outa τς ποκα 142...... 11. ὦ 
PM CAUILS σὴν ages veuat hoes αν sebtiwacys ces eas 104..6.65 238 


In general, it may be noted that these tables do not present such 
striking results as were afforded in Isocrates. Perhaps it is less 
in keeping with the genius of Demosthenes than of Isocrates to 
employ a comparatively formal rhetorical feature in such a way as 
to reflect faithfully the difference in style between particular ora- 
tions. However this may be, the brevity of so many of the ora- 
tions, combined with the much smaller average occurrence, neces- 
sarily operates to deprive these statistics of significance. It is only 
in the Public Forensic class, as a rule, that the number of examples 


is sufficient to make the ratios important; and here, for the most — 


part, the variations are slight. However, it has seemed worth 
while to call attention to a few works which, affording a respect- 
able number of examples, show also a ratio of C. to N. C. depart- 
ing widely from the norm of their class. _ 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 75 


GENUINE ORATIONS, 
1. DELIBERATIVE. 


3rd Phalippie. 


The 8rd Philippic is the longest and the latest in time of its 
class and shows the highest average occurrence of ὥστε (.78). It 
challenges attention by its remarkable proportion of C. to N. C.— 
13:1. Blass (p. 381) calls it the most powerful and pathetic of 
all the Demosthenean orations. Both he and Lord Brougham call | 
attention to its lack of “close reasoning.” This feature may help | 
to explain the entire absence of the “logical” type of ὥστε sen- 
tence. But the all but exclusive use of the correlative form in 
expressing result of the stricter sort is, I think, to be connected 
especially with the oratorical character of the composition. Blass, 
after commenting on the “fully developed and flowing period ” 
of the 1st Philippic as compared with the speech on the Sym- 
mories, “ which is neither epideictic nor oratorical,”’ remarks on 
the “still more powerful swing of the 3rd Philippic.” 

A number of the ὥστε sentences give a decidedly rhetorical effect. 
The greater part of the examples incline to the “G. + P.” type, 
and 9 of the 13 C. instances show the indicative in the ὥστε 
- clause. . 
3rd Olynthiac. 


The 8rd Olynthiac is much shorter and has but seven examples 
of ὥστε; but all these are of the C. type. Blass (p. 821) describes 
it as “full of strong passion”; Butcher speaks of its tone of 
“indignant remonstrance.” 

The ὥστε sentences serve effectively for emphatic characteriza- 
tion, the G. + P. type being well represented, but they are, on 
the whole, shorter and of a less rhetorical cast than in the 3rd 

Philippie. | 
τὶ 2. ῬΌΒΙΙΟ ΕΌΒΕΝΘΒΙΟ. 


The same gradation and advance in the composition of the period 
which Blass (p. 151) remarks, in the Deliberative class, in passing 


1Cf. ὁ. σ. 841 and 54. 


76 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


from the Symmories to the 1st Philippic, and from the latter to 
the 3rd Philippic, he traces, for this class, in the series Leptines, 
Aristocrates and Timocrates, Meidias and the False Embassy. 


Meldias. 


Of the Meidias, he says (p. 339) that it is “one of the first 
monuments of dignified and powerful oratory”; that it “belongs 
out and out to the genus grave, like the Philippic orations” ; it is 
‘“‘thoroughly pathetic, hence quite the opposite of the Leptines.” 
Butcher refers to it as “an admirable example of ancient invective.” 

In preference for C. ὥστε this oration far surpasses, not only all 
others of its class, but all others of the longer orations, with its 
ratio of 6:1. The G. + P. type prevails, and of the C. examples 
—excluding “‘ necessary ’’ infins.—two-thirds take the indicative, 

The work which Blass is especially fond of contrasting with the 

Meidias is the Leptines.* It shows a remarkably small average 
occurrence of ὥστε, and stands among the lowest of its class: in 


ratio of C. to N.C. For characterization, cf. especially Blass, pp. | 


272-3, where he remarks its absence of passion and of bitter in- 
vective. Elsewhere (p. 150) he observes that it lacks fulness and 


grandeur, despite the fact that the passages in praise of benefactors _ 


of the state afforded rich opportunity for the epideictic style. These 
two spheres—invective and highly polished encomium—are strong- 
holds of the C. ὥστε construction. The latter use can best be 


studied in Isocrates; the former in Demosthenes, and nowhere — 


better than in the Meidias and Timocrates. 


Timocrates. 


In respect to the artistic development of the period, Blass, as we 
have seen, places this oration in an intermediate class between the 


Leptines and Meidias: He attributes to it fulness of sentence-— 


structure (p. 287), and notes its bitterness and vehemence of tone. 
In proportion of C. to N. C. ὥστε it stands far below the Meidias, 


but appreciably above the average for its class. The G. + P. 
type is especially common, being employed to set forth and char- — 


1 Of. pp. 81, 151, 339. 


dete 
Xp 
δῶν Cae ὁ 


 \RRARY 
“OF Pee 


Mei A dad wel } 


f 


"Oere as an Index of Style m the nShnios “ 7 


acterize strongly the conduct of Timocrates and others'; and in 
_ these examples, in accordance with the general rule, the finite verb 
is used almost exclusively. 

A large proportion of the ὥστε sentences in the Timocrates give 
a decidedly rhetorical effect. Ina majority of instances the respons- 
ive effect is heightened by the initial position of the first correla- 
tive; and not infrequently an effective balance is exhibited, either 
between the main and ὥστε clause, or between the consecutive 
sentence taken as a whole and another member which unites with © 
it to form a period. For examples, cf. δὲ 3 and 9. : 


3. PRIVATE FORENSIC. 


Conon. 


The remarkable preference for the C. type exhibited in the Conon 
is a phenomenon which seems to demand explanation; for we have 
here an essay of Demosthenes in the “plain” style, and its Lysianic 
characteristics have been noted by the critics, from Dionysius down.’ 
The slight place given to formal argumentation may account for 
the lack of the “logical” type of ὥστε; for here, as so often in 
Lysias, the narrative is the argument.* But the entire absence as 
- well of the “simple result” type of N.C. is rather remarkable. 


_ We may at least note the character of the ὥστε sentences. They 


are for the most part short and simply constructed; the initial 
position of the correlative word is hardly more common than the 
final ; the infinitive predominates largely over the finite verb ; and 
the δ +P. type is extremely rare. The ὥστε clause, as a ‘yale, 


comes in quite naturally to measure the degree of an act or condi-. 


tion by its consequences—the true “ substantiating” function of 
the construction.* The use of the anticipating correlative serves 
primarily, with this earnest and indignant speaker, to emphasize 
and call attention to the connection between fact and consequence. 
But it also contributes to the sentence-structure something of that 


τ Note the large use of the familiar formulae. 

*Cf. Kirk, Demosthenic Style in the Private Orations (J. H. U. Diss.), p. 31. 
3 Cf. Blass, p. 461; Kirk, p. 21. 

4 Vid. supra, p. 13, and cf. A. J. P., XIv. p. 242. 


78 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


“well-rounded ” effect which Dionysius seems to claim for it;1 and 
which modern critics, in laying stress, very properly, on the “ ethical 
simplicity ” of the work in relation to the character portrayed, have 
perhaps too much overlooked. 


Guardianship Orations. 


We have now examined those works which show a marked pref- 
erence for C. ὥστε, and found that, as a rule, they exhibit certain 
common features—oratorical fulness and finish, impassioned nar- 
rative, and abundant characterization. Of those in which the 
N. C. prevails, no single oration shows a very striking ratio, espe- 
cially in view of the small-number of examples. But the fact that 
in the Private orations, where the ratios are most significant, all 
the works showing a predominance of N. C., except the very brief 


speech against Spudias (with only three examples), belong to the _. ; 


group of “ guardianship orations”’—the speeches against Aphobus 
~ and Onetor—suggests taking the collective statistics for this group. 
: We thus have a considerable body of material (59 pp.), belonging 
to the same period, dealing with practically the same issue, and 


exhibiting the same general style. In these “ lawyer-like speeches ° 


of Demosthenes himself,”’? the logical faculty of the advocate is 
given free scope and close legal argument is the dominant feature. 
There is little of characterization of opponents,’ and comparatively 
little attention to rhetorical effect.‘ 

In this group C. stand to N.C. as 1 to 1.43—almost exactly 
reversing the general ratio for the Private orations (1.37: 1). 
And it can hardly be without significance that the ratio which 
they exhibit is practically that of Isaeus—the master under whose 
influence, in the opinion of many, these earliest works were 


produced. 


1 στρογγύλα, De Adm. Vi. c. 13. ? Kirk, p. 21. 3 Cf. Blass, p. 231. 


4In the Onetor A/ all three of the C. examples occur in the single page of the | 


prooemium, a rather rhetorical passage (conflatio invidiae, cf. Kirk, p. 22). 
5 Note that comparison is here made with the whole class, in which the 


“ guardianship orations’’ are included. If we compare these with the remaining 


Private orations, the contrast between the ratios will, of course, ke more marked. 


“Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 79 


Spurious ORATIONS. 


The two spurious orations which show the most marked prefer- 


ence for C. ὥστε deserve special notice, inasmuch as they are 


excellent representatives of a style which we have found elsewhere 
associated with a large use of this type of sentence. 


Letter of Philip. 


The letter of Philip to the Athenian people—the composition, 
doubtless, of some rhetorical secretary '—bears clearly the impress 
of the Isocratic school.2 While quite short, the average oceur- 
rence of ὥστε is remarkable (1.67)—double that of any genuine 
work of Demosthenes. Of the 10 examples, 8 are C., 2 N. C. 
The C. examples nearly all exhibit the G. + P. type; six of 
them are instances of the formula eis τοῦτο (τοσοῦτον) ; seven 
._take the indicative ;* and all of these belong to the language of 
denunciation, being employed, in a general bill of complaints, to 
stamp each act recited with the quality which condemns it. Blass ‘ 
notes these “ frequent emphasizing expressions ᾽ (εἰς τοῦτο, κ. τ. A.) 
as among the markedly epideictic features of the work. } 


Eroticus. 


_ This is one of the two professedly epideictic works which have 

in some way been thrust into the Demosthenean corpus. For 
characterization, cf. Blass, pp. 406-408, 588. He finds the style 
“thoroughly Isocratic”—marked by careful composition and 
great periods. The average occurrence of ὥστε (.90) is close up to 
_ the general average of Isocrates. As to correlation, we have the 
striking proportion of 11 C.:2 N.C. The rhetorical handling of 
the construction recalls strongly the encomia of Isocrates. Note 
especially the free use of τοσοῦτον διαφέρειν and equivalent ex- 
pressions in setting up a contrast. 


1 Blass, p. 588. *Cf. Blass, pp. 394, 396-7. 
δ. The ὥστε in 2 14, followed by the participle, is a disputed reading—“ excidere 
facile potuit,” Dind.-Blass ed. 4p. 397. 


80 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


Neaera. 


On the other hand, those spurious orations which show the 


highest ratio of N. C. form a group whose stylistic tendencies are 


directly opposite to those of the Isocratic school and of the more 


finished work of Demosthenes. Of thése the Neaera is most 
deserving of study, as being the longest of the spurious orations 
and containing the highest number of examples of ὥστε. The 
unfavorable characterization of its style which occurs in the 
ὑπόθεσις of Libanius is concurred in by modern eritics.) 

Not only does the proportion of N.C. to C. exceed that of any 
genuine work of Demosthenes, but the several sub-types figure in 
the N.C. group in unusual proportions. The “logical” type is 
fairly well represented ; but the preponderance of N. C. seems to 


be due especially to a larger use of the “final” (including the 


ἐφ᾽ ᾧτε equivalent) and “simple result” types than we have been 
accustomed to find. The latter, as before pointed out, is the most 
significant for style, being, in most cases, readily interchangeable 
with the C. form. This oration shows, according to my classifica- 
tion, a number of examples of this use of ὥστε equal to that of the 
C. type—a phenomenon very uncommon in the standard orators. 
All but one of these are followed by the infinitive. . 


With the Neaera may be grouped the other spurious works (all 
Private orations) which show, like it, a more marked preference 
for the N. C. than is found in any genuine work—viz. the Polyeles, 
Timotheus, Euergus and Mnesibulus, Macartatus, and Leochares. 


The first two of these Blass (p. 589) assigns with certainty, the — 
- third with strong probability, to the author of the Neaera and 


several other speeches for Apollodorus—an unnamed logographer, 


“whose efforts hardly ever attain medium rank.” The Macar- 


tatus, along with the Lacritus and Olympiodorus,—all “of poor 
quality ’—he assigns to “a logographer of low rank” ; while the 


Leochares stands “nearly on the same plane.” ‘For the looseness 


and general “ formlessness” of their composition, and for their 


Cf. Blass, pp. 539-541, who finds in it the same faults of form as in the other 
works of the “ mediocre advocate’”’ who wrote for Apollodorus. 


Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 81 


correspondences with each other and with the Neaera, see Blass— 
especially pp. 526, 530, 547-9, 556, 560, 571. 
An analysis of the N. C. examples in these works shows a simi- 
larity to the Neaera in that the number of examples of the ‘simple 
result” type in each instance equals or surpasses that of the Οὐ 
This tendency to tack on the consequence loosely instead of 
gathering it up into a well-knit period by an anticipating correla- 
tive gives a certain “trailing” effect to the style (especially when 
the infinitive is used, as it is in most of these examples), and is in 
_ keeping, I think, with the general laxity of sentence-structure and 
absence of oratorical rounding in this group of speeches. It cer- 
tainly helps to differentiate them from the greater orators of the 
canon. 


4. COMPARISON OF PARTS OF SAME ORATION. 


The last test proposed has to do with variation in the use of 
ὥστε in different parts of the same oration, where there is a dis- 
tinct change of topic, accompanied by difference of style. The 
practical oratory of Demosthenes gives less scope for this kind of 
analysis than the writings of Isocrates, with their sophistic lean- 
ings, in which we seem to see the professional rhetorician delight- 
ing to show his skill in different kinds of composition within the 
compass of asingle work. ‘The slight use, too, of strictly epideictic 
narrative—that absence of the “pleasing treatment of grand and 
agreeable topics” which the writer of the περὶ Ὕ ψους observed in 
~ Demosthenes—removes an element which often gives a good oppor- 
tunity for the application of the analytical test in Isocrates. For 
all this, there are not wanting orations of Demosthenes in which 
the different divisions of the discourse are fairly well marked, not 
only by formulae of transition, but by significant stylistic differ- 
ences, so that they present reasonably distinct “blocks” from the 
standpoint of composition. In two works especially a contrast in 
style and subject-matter between different parts is ΕἸΣΙ ΕΊΠΡΝ re- 
flected by the usage with regard to ὥστε. 

The bulk of the Timocrates is made up of two tolerably dena 


1The Polycles has nine N. Οὐ. examples, all of the “S. R.” type except two or 
three, which are “ final,” and all taking the infinitive. 


82 Ὥστε as an Index of Style in the Orators. 


divisions. Sections 17-122 are devoted mainly toa close, detailed 
argument, based on the provisions of existing laws—the case being 
a γραφὴ παρανόμων. This division occupies 27 pages, forming 
about one-half of the whole speech. Sections 125-203 (20 pp.) 
are a sort of digression, containing personal attacks on parties in 
opposition. They consist largely of narrative and characterization, 
and are marked by oratorical vigor and fulness. 

The first of these divisions contains but 4 examples of ὥστε, all 
of the N. C. type. The second exhibits 13 examples, and 12 of 
these are C. 

A similar well-marked division into legal argument and narra- ὁ 
tive is seen in the speech Against Androtion. The plan laid down - 
in the πρόθεσις (§ 8) is strictly adhered to. Secs. 5-46 (12 pp) 
contain an anticipation and refutation of the pleas of the defence. 
The remainder of the speech (9 pp.) is a scathing review of the 
public career of Androtion. The greater fulness and dignity of 
treatment in this second division, as compared with the technical 
argument, is recognized by Blass (p. 262), and a corresponding 
difference in style is clearly perceptible. | 

The first division has 7 examples of ὥστε, of which 6 are N. C. 
In the second the particle is employed 11 times, and 10 of these 
instances are of the C. type. 

Among other orations in which analysis brings out a suggestive 
grouping of the two types of ὥστε sentences, the Conon, Onetor A’, 
and Stephanus A’ may be specially noted. 


CONCLUDING REMARKS. 


In concluding this study, I would again call attention to the 
elements of rhetorical effect which have combined to give the con- 
struction of ὥστε with a correlative so large a place in the most 
finished work of the ‘greatest masters of the oratorical period. 
Among the most significant of these are dignity and deliberateness 
of movement, responsion, balance, fulness, and emphasis gained by 
suspense. The last seems to me especially important ; and it was 
seized upon as the salient feature of the construction by Dissen in 
his essay, “De Structura Periodorum Oratoria,”’ and set forth — 


1 Prefixed to his edition of Demosthenes De Corona, Gottingen, 1837. 


“Oore as an Index of Style in the Orators. 83 


‘in these words: “Something of especial weight is announced and 


expectation is excited as greatly as possible, but the βέμξο of 
the period is suspended until the thing itself emerges.” This 


ne description is especially applicable to the “ general and par- 


ticular”? type of sentence; but it holds good, in a measure, 
wherever the antecedent clause is felt to be mainly incidental and 
preparatory to the more important statement contained in the 
ὥστε clause.' Blass’ dictum, “the more preparation, the more the 
concluding sentence stands out,”? finds an appropriate applica- 
tion here. 

Two other passages in Blass may be referred to for their general 
bearing on this subject—what he says* of the “separating” effect. 


_ of the correlative in general as an important factor in the division 


of the oratorical period into suitable cola; and his observation, 
from another point of view, that “if the sentences are long, the 


“period is the more oratorical the closer the connection and the 


stronger the dependence.” * Fora more particular interpretation, 


‘on the part of the same critic, of the rhetorical effect of the ὥστε 


correlative construction, cf. his analysis of the procemium of the 
3rd Philippic.® 


1The four passages from Demosthenes cited by Dissen in the section (pp. Lv.- 
LyvI.) which he devotes to οὕτως-ὥστε as a distinct form of period—De Cor. 204; 
Androt. 74; Meid. 114; De Cor. 33—are worthy of close study ; as are also three 
others, cited in other connections, in which the effect of the correlative consecu- 
tive sentence elicits special comment—Meid. 61 (p. 44), Meid. 215 (p. 64); De 


Chers. 69 (p. 68). In all, I have counted no less than 23 instances of this con- 


struction in the model periods from Demosthenes which Dissen introduces for 
purposes of illustration. 


*111. p. 152. 33mm. p. 118. ‘ur, p. 146, 5111, pp. 152-3. 


sper POM A pe 


UNIVERSITY 


ee 


RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 

ΤΟ «τ 202 Main Library 

LOAN PERIOD 1 72 3 
~ HOME USE 

4 5 6 


ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 

1-month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405 

6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 
Renewals-and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 


DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
PRD? 198] 


Rec. CR AUG καὶ 198] 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 


FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 3/80 BERKELEY, CA 94720 a | 


U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 


c048916380 


Soe ΞΞΞΞΕΞΞΣΞΞΞ: 
δ πεσε Sar eee SRS SES ae 


